Telangana High Court
Mohd. Afzal Ali vs The State Of Telangana, Rep. By Its ... on 16 December, 2022
Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao
1 RRN,J
WP No.45866 of 2016
*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
+W.P. No.45866 OF 2016
% 16-12-2022
#Mohd. Afzal Ali
....petitioner
Vs.
$ State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department,
Secretariat , Hyderabad and 4 others
.... Respondents
!Counsel for the petitioner : MD. Ajmal Ahmed
Counsel for the Respondents : G.P for Services-II
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
2 RRN,J
WP No.45866 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
WP. No.45866 OF 2016
Between:
Mohd. Afzal Ali
....petitioner
Vs.
$ State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department,
Secretariat , Hyderabad and 4 others
... Respondents
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 16.12.2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
3 RRN,J
WP No.45866 of 2016
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.45866 of 2016
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:
"....to issue an appropriate Writ or order or
direction more in the nature of a Writ of
Mandamus praying that this Hon'ble Court to
declare the action of the respondent No.2
herein in passing impugned proceedings vide
L Dis.No.709/A3/PR/2015 dt.28-01-2016
confirming the order of respondent No.4
herein as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and
in violation of article 14, 21 of the
Constitution of India and consequently direct
the respondents herein to reinstate the
petitioner as Police Constable in appropriate
Police Station."
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
while the petitioner was working as Police Constable in Chennur
4 RRN,J
WP No.45866 of 2016
Police Station, he was discharging the duties on night patrolling
on 10.07.2012/11.07.2012 in Beat-I area along with the home
guard Sri Mudassir. The said home guard allegedly reported to
the Station House Officer of Chennur Police Station on
14.07.2012 stating that while they were on duty on the night of
10.07.2012/11.07.2012, they had stopped a Bolero jeep laden
with illicit timber and that the owner of the Jeep Sammireddy
had allegedly paid the petitioner a sum of Rs. 26,000/- for
letting him off. Later, the said home guard alleged that the
petitioner offered him Rs. 10,000/- and when he refused to
accept it, the petitioner has allegedly forcibly put the amount
into his pocket.
2.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that the Circle Inspector, Chennur, had recorded the statements
of the Home Guard i.e PW.3, the said Sammireddy i.e PW.1 and
others and sent a report to the Superintendent of Police,
Adilabad, vide C.No.89/N1/12 dated. 6-9-2012. Upon the report
of the Circle Inspector of Police, the Superintendent of Police,
Adilabad, had placed the petitioner under suspension and
initiated disciplinary proceedings vide memorandum of charge
5 RRN,J
WP No.45866 of 2016
C.No.20/PR/A6/2012 dt.12.11.2013 and also ordered oral
enquiry while appointing the Circle Inspector of Police,
Luxettipet vide order dt.07.01.2014 and subsequently, the said
Cricle Inspector of Police submitted his report vide C.No.
20/PR/A6/2012-14 dt.24-10-2014 holding the article of
charges against the petitioner as proved. The Superintendent of
Police, Adilabad, agreeing with the Inquiry Officer, awarded a
penalty of dismissal from service and the period of suspension
w.e.f. 02.02.2013 to 01.04.2013 was directed to be treated as
"not on duty" vide C.No. 20/PR/A6/2012-15 dt.11.09.2015.
2.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that aggrieved by the action of the Disciplinary Authority, the
petitioner preferred an appeal under rule 33(i)(ii) of
A.P.C.S.(CC&A) Rules before the Deputy Inspector General of
Police, Karimnagar range, on the ground that the Station House
Officer, Chennur, had cooked up a story to frame the petitioner
as he had borne a grudge against the petitioner who had
refused to collect the mamools and bring it to the Station House
Office among other grounds. The said appeal was rejected on
27-10-2015 vide C.No.133/APP/A/2015 and confirmed the
6 RRN,J
WP No.45866 of 2016
order of the dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
Against the same, the petitioner preferred a revision before
Deputy Inspector General of Police, Warangal Range, North
Zone, and the same was rejected on 28.01.2016.
2.3 Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended
that the Home Guard i.e PW.3 had reported about the alleged
incident to the Inspector three days later without any
explanation for the delay and that during preliminary enquiry
the said Sammireddy i.e PW.1 was forced to depose against the
petitioner by the Circle Inspector of Police, Luxettipet, the
Enquiry Officer, by threatening that a crime would be registered
against him and he would be sent to jail if he changes his
statement.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that
all the allegations made by the petitioner are false and they
pleaded that the constable freed the illegal teak wood-loaded
vehicle by accepting of Rs.26,000/- and out of which
Rs.10,000/- was given to a Home Guard and also pleaded that
not satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, the
authority conducted an overall enquiry against the charged
7 RRN,J
WP No.45866 of 2016
officer under Rule 20 of A.P.C.S.(CC&A) Rules, 1991 (Under
Telangana Adaptation Orders) 2016 giving him all reasonable
opportunities and examined 8 witnesses and exhibited 11
documents on behalf of the prosecution and submitted his
findings duly holding the charge as proved under G.O.Ms.
No.458 GA (SCR-C) Department dt.22.09.2009 and the
petitioner is awarded a penalty of dismissal from service and the
period of suspension w.e.f. 2-2-2013 to 1-4-2013 is treated as
"Not on duty" vide office proceedings dt.11.09.2015.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that
there is no violation of CCA rules in conducting the enquiry and
imposing the penalty on the petitioner and his version in the
affidavit is false and baseless. The punishment is in proportion
to act committed by the petitioner.
5. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the
respondent. Perused the record.
6. It is to be noted that PW.1 who is the owner of the
Jeep in his statement categorically stated that "The Home
Guard who was with Afzal constable warned me don't tell this
8 RRN,J
WP No.45866 of 2016
matter anyone." Whereas it is upon the complaint of PW.3 that
the Departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner
and the Enquiry Officer ignored the above statement of PW.1
and proceeded only against the petitioner, which clearly
indicates lacunas in the enquiry.
7. A careful perusal of the impugned order under challenge
goes to show that the revision was rejected on the sole ground
that PW.3 i.e. Sri Md. Mudassir, Home Guard, who performed
beat duty along with the petitioner stated that the petitioner
had kept Rs.10,000/- forcibly in his pocket, but he refused to
accept the amount. A perusal of the statement of PW.3 Md
Mudassir, Home Guard, who has given a complaint against the
petitioner, states that the petitioner had taken some amount
from PW.1 and despite refusal by PW.3, petitioner had forcibly
kept an amount of Rs.10,000/- in the pocket of PW.3.
8. If the above version of PW.3 is to be considered, and if
PW.3 is so sincere and honest, he would have handed over the
said amount to the Department by showing his bona fides,
whereas there is no such aspect of recovery of the said amount.
Even as per cross-examination PW.3 admitted that he did not
9 RRN,J
WP No.45866 of 2016
see the petitioner taking the money. Moreover, there is delay of
three days in reporting the alleged incident to the higher ups.
But, the delay is not explained in any manner. These
circumstances clearly goes to show that there is no
substantiation and reliability in the statements of the witnesses.
As such, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner had
committed the alleged misconduct.
9. In view of inconsistency in the version of witnesses,
this court is of the considered view that the punishment
awarded by the respondents is not tenable as they have failed to
prove the guilt/misconduct of the petitioner beyond all
reasonable doubt. As such, the proceedings vide L
Dis.No.709/A3/PR/2015 dt.28-01-2016 is set aside and the
respondents are directed to re-reinstate the petitioner as Police
Constable and award any lesser punishment other than
dismissal from service in accordance with the law. However, it
is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled to claim back
wages and seniority pertaining to the termination period.
10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is partly allowed with the
above observations. No order as to costs.
10 RRN,J
WP No.45866 of 2016
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed
__________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
Date: 16.12.2022
bdr
