The Superintendent Of Police, vs Md. Ankus,
2022 Latest Caselaw 4371 Tel

  HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

                                       AND

                HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

                            W.P.No.10766 of 2007

ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)



        This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the orders of the

A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity 'the

Tribunal') passed in O.A.No.6385 of 2002 dt.08-09-2006.


        2.      Heard the learned Government Pleader for Home

appearing for the petitioners and Sri Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel

for the respondent.

3. It has been contended by the petitioners that the

respondent was engaged as a Police Constable and while he was

working, he was indulged in a criminal case in Crime No.32 of

1993 for the offences under Sections 147, 452, 136, 323 and 380

IPC and simultaneously, disciplinary proceedings were also

issued against him. The respondent was acquitted by the

competent criminal Court in C.C.No.245 of 1993 vide judgment AKS,J & SK,J

dt.13-01-1998. However in the domestic enquiry, the disciplinary

authority imposed a punishment of postponement of one

increment of one year with cumulative effect and on pension.

The suspension period i.e. with effect from 26-06-1993 to

15-04-1996 is treated as 'not on duty'. Thereafter, the respondent

has unsuccessfully preferred appeal and later challenged the said

orders before the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.6385 of 2002 and the

Tribunal vide orders dt.08-09-2006 was pleased to allow the O.A.

preferred by the respondent and was pleased to set aside the

orders of the punishment without appreciating any of the

contentions raised by the petitioners. Therefore, appropriate

orders be passed in the Writ Petition by setting aside the orders of

the Tribunal and allow the Writ Petition.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent had contended

that the Tribunal was justified in allowing the O.A.and came to a

conclusion that the respondent was tried for the very same set of

allegations by the competent criminal Court and the Criminal

Court came to the conclusion that the testimonies of PWs.1 and 2

were not believable and on that ground, acquitted the respondent AKS,J & SK,J

and in the domestic enquiry also, the enquiry officer has come to

the same conclusion that the testimonies of PWs.1 and 2 were

unbelievable but in spite of the enquiry officer's report, the

disciplinary authority has imposed a major penalty. Therefore,

there are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be

dismissed.

5. This Court having considered the submissions made

by the learned counsel for the petitioners is of the considered view

that the Tribunal was justified in allowing the O.A. with the

following observations:

"The Criminal Court while considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 2 were not believable and the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused. So, the case ended in acquittal. Significantly, the departmental enquiry officer also came to the same conclusion rightly. As already pointed out, there is total lack of evidence in the departmental enquiry to prove the misconduct against the applicant and the Superintendent of Police was not justified in coming to the different conclusion than the departmental enquiry officer. Be that as it may, I have to see the effect of the judgment of the criminal court on the departmental proceedings when the charges are in both the proceedings are one and the same, AKS,J & SK,J

witness are the same and the evidence is one and the same. For that I have to examine the decision of our Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case G.M. Tank v. State of Gujrat and others1, which is relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant."

6. A perusal of the record further discloses that the

respondent was subject to very same set of allegations in both the

Criminal Court as well as in the domestic enquiry. The Supreme

Court in G.M. Tank's case (1 supra) has elaborately considered

the issue and held as under:

"In our opinion, such facts and evidence in the departmental as well as criminal proceedings were the same without there being any iota of difference, the appellant should succeed. The distinction which is usually proved between the departmental and criminal proceedings on the basis of the approach and burden of proof would not be applicable in the instant case. Though the finding recorded in the domestic enquiry was found to be valid by the courts below, when there was an honourable acquittal of the employee during the pendency of the proceedings challenging the dismissal, the same requires to be taken note of and the decision in Paul Anthony case will apply. We, therefore, hold that the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed."

(2006) 5 SCC 446 AKS,J & SK,J

7. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with

the orders of the Tribunal and therefore the Writ Petition is liable

to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No

costs.

9. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if

any, shall stand closed.

______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

_____________________________ K. SARATH, J Dt.05.09.2022 kvr