K. Srinivas Goud vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1628 Tel

         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

           WRIT PETITION No.2476 of 2023

ORDER:

1. Heard Sri N.Ramesh, Learned Counsel appearing

for the petitioner and Sri M.V.Rama Rao, Learned

Special Government Pleader for Home, appearing for

the respondents.

2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner

submitsthat the petitioner was enrolled as Home

Guard vide Proceedings dated 20.04.2006 and working

under the control of the respondent No.4. While it

being so the petitioner was kept under suspension vide

orders in C.No.79/RI-HGO/JGL/2020 dated

16.04.2020 on account of registration of a crime

No.99/2020 under Sections 290, 504, 506 IPC and

Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (Va) of SCs and STs PoA

SK,J W.P.No.2476 of 2023

Amendment Act, 2015 of Dharmapuri P.S., on

09.04.2020.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further

submits that the petitioner was acquitted in the

Criminal Case on 21.06.2022 in S.C.No.142 of 2021

on the file of Special Sessions Judge for trial of

offences under SCs & STs (PoA) Act-cum-III Additional

Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. After acquittal of the

petitioner in the criminal case, surprisingly the Deputy

Superintendent of Police submitted a report stating

that the petitioner abused a SC-community Woman

and requested to take disciplinary action against the

petitioner. The Deputy Superintendent of Police

conducted enquiry behind and back of the petitioner

and basing on the said report a show cause notice was

issued to the petitioner on 29.08.2022 asking him to

submit explanation and accordingly the petitioner

SK,J W.P.No.2476 of 2023

submitted his explanation. The Disciplinary Committee

without considering the explanation submitted by the

petitioner, recommended for removal of the petitioner

from service and accordingly basing on the directions

of the committee the petitioner was removed from

service vide proceedings in C.No.271/RI/HG/JGL/

2022 (D.No.06./2022) dated 22.09.2022.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further

submitted that when the petitioner was acquitted in

the Criminal case, he has to be reinstated into service,

but the respondents passed the impugned removal

order for same set of facts of criminal case and

requested to allow the writ petition.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in support

of his contention relied on the following judgment:

SK,J W.P.No.2476 of 2023

1. P.Satyanarayana Vs. the Government of Andhra Pradesh1,

6. The learned Special Government Pleader

submitted that the Enquiry Officer submitted his

report to the then Superintendent of police Jagtial

District vide C.No.47/SB/JGL/2022 dated

24.06.2022 and taking into account of the said report

the respondents have passed the present impugned

orders.

7. The learned Special Government Pleader further

submits that the Disciplinary Committee met on

20.09.2022 and after perusing the record it has come

to the conclusion that the petitioner has indulged in

misconduct and therefore the continuation of the

petitioner in the Home Guard Organization will bring

disrepute, tarnish the image of the Home Guard

1 Unreported Judgment in

WP (TR) No.173 of 2017 of erstwhile High Court of A.P

SK,J W.P.No.2476 of 2023

Organization and also encourage other Home Guards

to resort to such misconduct and recommended to

remove the petitioner from the rolls of Home Guard

Organization.

8. The learned Special Government Pleader further

submits that the Departmental proceedings are

different and distinct from the Criminal cases. The

degree of proof which is necessary to order a convict is

different from the degree of proof necessary to record

the commisiosn of delinquency. In a Departmental

enquiry the penalty can be imposed on the delinquent

officer on a finding recorded on the basis of

preponderance of probability.

9. The learned Special Government Pleader further

submits that the charge leveled against the petitioner

was proved, as such the petitioner is not entitled to

SK,J W.P.No.2476 of 2023

the relief sought for in the writ petition and requested

to dismiss the writ petition.

10. The learned Special Government Pleader for

Home relied on the following citations of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court:

2. Noida Entrepreneurs Association Vs. Noida and others2.

3. Depot Manager, A.P.State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mohd.Yiousuf Miya and others3

11. After hearing both sides and on perusing the

record this Court is of the considered view that the

petitioner while working as Home Guard involved in a

criminal case registered under Sections 290, 504, 506

IPC and Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (Va) of SCs and

STs PoA Amendment Act, 2015 of Dharmapuri Police

Station and subsequently he was acquitted from the

said Criminal case in Sessions Case No.142 of 2021 on

2. (2007) 10 SCC 385 3 (1997) 2 SCC 699

SK,J W.P.No.2476 of 2023

the file of III-Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad on

21.06.2022.

12. The respondents have issued 1st Show-cause

notice on 16.04.2020 and the petitioner submitted his

explanation 07.09.2020 and thereafter the petitioner

was acquitted in the criminal case on 21.06.2022.

After acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case,

the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jagtial

conducted enquiry and submitted his report to the

Superintendent of Police on 24.06.2022 and basing the

said report the respondents have issued 2nd

Show-cause notice to the petitioner on 29.08.2022 and

against the same the petitioner submitted his

explanation on 06.09.2022 and the impugned order of

removal was passed on 22.09.2022.

13. As per the record there is no discussion about

the explanation offered by the petitioner. The charges

SK,J W.P.No.2476 of 2023

leveled against the petitioner was involvement in a

criminal case and there was no further allegation

against him. The petitioner stated in his explanation

that the criminal case was ended in acquittal and the

same has became final as no appeal has been

preferred by the State and the petitioner was

discharged from the charges levelled against him. The

committee sticks to the allegations leveled against the

petitioner i.e. his involvement in a criminal case.

There is no independent enquiry conducted on the

nature of crime and involvement of the petitioner.

Except referring to the report of Home-Guards

Disciplinary Committee there is no discussion in the

impugned order of removal of the petitioner from

service as Home Guard.

14. In the judgment relied by the learned Counsel

for the petitioner this Court in P.Satyanayrana Vs

SK,J W.P.No.2476 of 2023

The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others

(Supra1), held in similarly situated set of facts that

the procedure as required was not followed as held by

the Division Bench of this Court in State of Andhra

Pradesh Vs. P.Prasad Rao4 the order impugned in

that case was set aside.

15. The judgments relied on by the learned Special

Government Pleader for Home do not apply to the

instant case as the respondents have not followed the

procedure as law laid down by the Division Bench of

this Court with regard to disciplinary proceedings in

respect of Home Guards in State of Andhra Pradesh

vs P.Prasad Rao (supra 4).

16. The respondents have not conducted proper

enquiry before imposing punishment of removal of the

petitioner from service. In the instant case the Deputy

4 2012(1) ALD 76 (DB)

SK,J W.P.No.2476 of 2023

Superintendent of Police conducted enquiry behind

and back of the petitioner and submitted his report

after acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case

and basing on the said report the disciplinary

authorities have issued impugned order of removal

against the petitioner.

17. In view of the law laid down by the Division

Bench of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs.

P.Prasad Rao (supra 4) and consequential judgments,

the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

18. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed by

setting aside the impugned order of removal of the

petitioner from service issued in

Proc.No.C.No271/RI/HG/JGL/2022 (D.No06/2022)

dated 22.09.2022 by the respondent No.4 and the

respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner

into service as Home Guard. However, the petitioner is

SK,J W.P.No.2476 of 2023

not entitled to claim wages for the period he was out of

service. There shall be no order as to costs.

19. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this

Writ petition shall stand closed.

_____________________ JUSTICE K.SARATH, Date: 13.04.2023 trr