The Supdt. Of Police 2 Ors., vs Sk. Nazeer Another,
2022 Latest Caselaw 4445 Tel

  HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

                                       AND

                HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

                             W.P.No.6482 of 2010

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.3809 of 2007 dt.02-11-2009.


        2.      Heard      the     learned      Government   Pleader   for

Home appearing for the petitioners and Sri Chakravarthy

P.V.S.K., learned counsel for the 1st respondent.

3. It has been contended by the petitioners that the 1st

respondent was working as Head Constable and he was involved

in an offence under Section 498-A IPC and he was tried by the

competent Criminal Court and was convicted for the said offence

in S.C.No.869 of 2000 vide judgment dt.22-07-2004 and the 1st

respondent preferred Crl.A.No.309 of 2004 before the IX

Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, and the same was allowed AKS,J & SK,J

vide orders dt.23-01-2006 and he was acquitted of the said

criminal charge.

4. Learned Government Pleader for Home appearing

for the petitioners has contended that the departmental

proceedings were also initiated against the 1st respondent and in

the enquiry, the enquiry officer held that the charge is not proved.

Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, Khammam has

disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer's report and

gave a dissent note to the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent has

submitted his explanation. Being not satisfied with the said

explanation, the petitioners vide orders dt.20-09-2006 have

imposed a punishment of postponement of one increment with

effect on future increments and pension. Aggrieved by the said

orders of punishment, the 1st respondent has preferred appeal and

the appellate authority has also confirmed the orders of the

disciplinary authority vide orders dt.26-11-2006. Learned counsel

for the petitioners has contended that aggrieved by the orders of

imposition, the 1st respondent has filed O.A.No.3809 of 2007

before the Tribunal and the Tribunal was pleased to allow the said AKS,J & SK,J

O.A. by modifying the punishment of postponement of one

increment with effect on future increment and pension to that of

postponement of one increment for a period of one year without

cumulative effect and besides that directed the petitioners to treat

the suspension period i.e. from 18-03-2004 to 02-03-2005 as

'spent on duty' without appreciating any of the contentions raised

by the petitioners.

5. Learned Government Pleader for Home appearing

for the petitioners had further contended that the Tribunal gave a

specific finding that the misconduct which is proved in the

domestic enquiry was confirmed, however, interfered with the

punishment only on the ground of proportionality. Learned

counsel for the petitioners had contended that if the punishment is

interfered based on disproportionate punishment, the Tribunal

ought to have remanded the matter back to the petitioners so as to

enable the petitioners to impose any other commensurate

punishment on the 1st respondent. But the Tribunal acceded in

further directing that the suspension period is treated as 'spent on AKS,J & SK,J

duty'. Therefore, the orders of the Tribunal are contrary to the

law and the same are liable to be set aside.

6. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent had contended

that the enquiry officer has held that the charge is not proved in

the domestic enquiry and the disciplinary authority has given

dissent note and has not even considered the explanation

submitted by the 1st respondent. Therefore, the Tribunal was

justified in interfering with the orders of punishment. Therefore,

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

dismissed.

7. This Court having considered the submissions made

by the learned counsel for both the parties is of the considered

view that the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the

punishment of postponement of one increment with cumulative

effect is shockingly disproportionate and in that case, the

Tribunal ought to have remanded the matter back to the appellate

authority to impose any other punishment. Therefore, the

Tribunal was not justified in modifying the punishment and it AKS,J & SK,J

could not have further directed that the suspension period should

be treated as 'spent on duty'.

8. Therefore, the orders of the Tribunal are liable to be

set aside and accordingly they are set aside and the matter is

remanded back to the petitioners so as to enable the appellate

authority to consider the case of the 1st respondent. In respect of

suspension period is concerned, the petitioners shall follow the

Rule 54 (b) of the Fundamental Rules and pass appropriate orders

after giving sufficient opportunity to the 1st respondent.

9. With these observations, the Writ Petition is

disposed of. No costs.

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

any, shall stand closed.

______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

_____________________________ K. SARATH, J Dt.07.09.2022 kvr