N.Ramachandraiah vs Commandant Tz, Secunderabad. 4
2022 Latest Caselaw 5776 Tel

  THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

             WRIT PETITION (TR) No. 941 OF 2017

ORDER:

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner

seeking a writ of certiorari to call for records relating to the

impugned proceeding No.A3/PR/132&169/SPF/2007,

O.O.No.15(T2)/08, dated 02.09.2008 issued by the

respondent No.1 and orders passed in the appeal of

petitioner by the respondent No.2 in

RC.No.A3/PR/132&169/SPF/2007-10, O.O.No.A-74/2011,

dated 10.02.2011 and the orders passed by respondent

No.4 in Revision Petition Vide BC.No.A3/PR/132&169/

SPF/2007-12, O.O.No.A-04/2012, dated 05.01.2012 and its

connected orders dated 02.06.2012 and the consequential

orders issued by the Government in Memo

No.9261/Ser,III/A3/2012, dated 17.01.2013, as illegal,

arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory and disproportionate to the

gravity of the charges and consequently to direct the

respondents to drop the disciplinary proceedings against the

petitioner and further release all the consequential service PMD,J W.P(TR).No.941 of 2017

benefits including promotion and pass such other and

further orders.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ

petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a

Police Constable in SPF on 12.08.1994 and was promoted to

the post of Head Constable with effect from 28.12.2005

notionally vide order dated 18.04.2006. It is submitted that

on the allegations that the petitioner was playing cards

while working as SPF Guard, ABCC, Karimnagar, on

01.12.2007 along with one T.E.V.Raju (ASL 821) and

R.Kumara Swamy (CT 965), the petitioner was placed under

suspension on 01.12.2007. The petitioner was issued a

charge memo by framing two charges on 17.12.2007 and

the petitioner submitted his explanation to the same on

01.08.2008. It is submitted that on 26.03.2008, the

Assistant Commandant, SPF, Hyderabad, was appointed as

an Inquiry Officer, to whom the petitioner submitted his

representation on 30.05.2008 and sought an opportunity to

cross examine the Bank Manager and sought for a copy of

the statement of bank manager for the said purpose. It was PMD,J W.P(TR).No.941 of 2017

submitted that in spite of said request, the petitioner was

not furnished the copy of said statement. It is submitted

that on the basis of the inquiry report, a show cause notice

dated 30.06.2008 was issued to the petitioner and the

petitioner had submitted his explanation to the same.

However, on 02.09.2008, the impugned punishment order

was passed reducing the petitioner's time scale of pay by

three years with cumulative effect. It is submitted that the

petitioner has filed an appeal with the respondent No.2, but

the same was rejected and even the revision filed by the

petitioner was also rejected by the respondent No.4. It is

submitted that the petitioner's scale was reduced from

Rs.5750/- to Rs.5605/- vide proceedings dated 02.06.2012

and the petitioner's representation to the Government on

this, was also rejected. Challenging the same, the petitioner

filed O.A. before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative

Tribunal and due to non formation of an Administrative

Tribunal for the State of Telangana, the said matter has

been transferred to the High Court and was renumbered as

W.P.(TR).No. 941 of 2017.

PMD,J W.P(TR).No.941 of 2017

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the petitioner is challenging the impugned order on the

grounds that it is violation of Rule 20 of TS CS (CCS) Rules

1991, as no witnesses were examined and no documents

were furnished to the petitioner during the course of

inquiry. He referred to Rule 20 (4), which refers to the

documents furnished and also Rule 20 (11) whether the

I.O., shall issue notice to the parties. He further submitted

that the Inquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority are

required to consider only the incident for which charges

have been framed and not his past record for imposing the

punishment on the petitioner. He submitted that though the

appellate authority himself observed that the Inquiry Officer

should not consider the past record of the petitioner, he has

also considered the same while imposing the punishment on

the petitioner. According to him, the impugned punishment

are too harsh, excessive and totally disproportionate to the

charges framed against the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the

following judgments in support of his contentions:

PMD,J W.P(TR).No.941 of 2017

(i) D.Srinivas Vs. Government of A.P., Transport,

Roads and Buildings (Vig.1) Departmetn and Others,

reported in 2013 (4) ALT 1 (DB);

(ii) A.C.Ravindran Vs. High Court of Andhra

Pradesh, Hyderabad and Another, reported in 2011 (2)

ALD 275 (DB);

(iii) State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in

2010 (2) SCC 772;

(iv) Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and

Others, reported in 2009 (2) SCC 570.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further filed the

copies of orders passed by the Government in respect of

other co-accused i.e., R.Kumara Swamy and T.E.V.Raju,

wherein the punishment of postponement of one increment

for one year without cumulative effect has been passed. He

therefore, seeks similar treatment in the case of the

petitioner herein as well.

6. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand,

supported the impugned order and submitted that the PMD,J W.P(TR).No.941 of 2017

statement of the Manager on which the petitioner claims

that the punishment order is relied upon was in fact not

considered by the Inquiry Officer and therefore, no prejudice

has been caused to the petitioner by non-furnishing of the

same. He referred to page No.26 of the writ papers, which

the petitioner claims to be a request for an opportunity for

cross examine, but he submits that it is not a request, but it

was only a statement made with regard to the recording of

statement. He submits that the charges against the other

delinquent employees were not similar as to the petitioner

and therefore, the punishment imposed on the petitioner is

reasonable and needs no interference. He also submitted

that the past record of the petitioner was only seen for the

purpose of quantum of punishment i.e., whether lenient

view should be taken and not for the purpose of holding the

petitioner as guilty of charges.

7. Having regard to the rival contentions and the

material on record, this Court finds that on 30.05.2008, the

petitioner had made request to allow to examine the Bank

Manager as a witness and also to supply a copy of the PMD,J W.P(TR).No.941 of 2017

statement of the Manager, but the same was not furnished

to him by the respondents. However, since the same was

not relied upon by the respondents to hold the petitioner as

guilty of charges, this Court is also of the opinion that no

prejudice has been caused to the petitioner on this account.

Further it is noticed that in the case of other co-

delinquents, who were also found playing cards along with

the petitioner, the punishment imposed was of

postponement of increment for one year without cumulative

effect. This Hon'ble Court in the case of D.Srinivas (cited

supra) has held that where the charges are same against

two officers, when the charges have been dropped against

one officer, there is no reason for continuing the charges

against the other officers and therefore, the action of the

respondents in imposing penalty on the petitioner therein

based on identical charges was held to be clearly an

infraction of Article 14 of the constitution in so far as

petitioner therein is concerned and was accordingly set

aside on the ground of discrimination. In the case before

this Court also, it appears to be an act of discrimination

against the petitioner herein.

PMD,J W.P(TR).No.941 of 2017

8. As regards the other judgment relied upon by the

learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has held that non supply of the necessary documents

vitiates the inquiry and when the disciplinary as well as

appellate authorities were not supported by reasons, the

orders are not sustainable.

9. In the case of A.C.Ravindran (Cited Supra), wherein

the Hon'ble High Court has held that though the statements

are cited in the list of documents, but the said persons are

not added as witnesses, it is violation of principles of

natural justice.

10. However, in view of the finding that no prejudice has

been caused to the petitioner by such non furnishing of the

statement, the above decisions do not come to the rescue of

the petitioner. However, since it has been held that

imposing a higher punishment on the petitioner for the very

same charges is discrimination, the impugned order is liable

to be set aside. In such circumstances, the natural corollary

would be to remand the matter to the disciplinary authority

for reconsideration of issue of punishment. However, in view PMD,J W.P(TR).No.941 of 2017

of the fact that considerable time has passed and in similar

circumstances, the other delinquent employees have been

punished with postponement of one annual increment

without cumulative effect, this Court deems it fit and proper

to modify the punishment imposed against the petitioner as

postponement of one increment without cumulative effect.

The respondents are directed to grant consequential

benefits, if any, to the petitioner. The consequential order

shall be passed within a period of three months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order.

11. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There shall

be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ

Petition, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

Dated: 11.11.2022

bak PMD,J W.P(TR).No.941 of 2017

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

W.P (TR).No. 941 OF 2017

Dated: 11.11.2022

bak