Telangana High Court
Shaik Riyaz Baba , vs The State Of Telangana ... on 6 January, 2023
Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao
1 RRN,J
WP No.27062 of 2018
*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
+W.P. No.27062 OF 2018
% 06-01-2023
#Shaik Riyaz Baba
....petitioner
Vs.
$ State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue
(VIG-II) Department, Telangana Secretariat , Hyderabad and others
.... Respondents
!Counsel for the petitioner : J. Sudheer
Counsel for the Respondents : G.P for Services-I
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
2 RRN,J
WP No.27062 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
WP. No.27062 OF 2018
Between:
Shaik Riyaz Baba
....petitioner
Vs.
$ State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue
(VIG-II) Department, Telangana Secretariat , Hyderabad and others
... Respondents
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 06.01.2023
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.27062 of 2018
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.27062 OF 2018
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:
"...to set aside the proceedings dt.07.12.2015 through
which the petitioner was dismissed from service by the
3rd respondent and consequential proceedings of the
2nd respondent dt.27.07.2016 through which the
appeal of the petitioner was rejected and also the
proceedings of the 1st respondent dt.12.03.2018
through which the review petition of the petitioner was
rejected; by issuance of Writ of Mandamus and
pass....."
2. It has been contended by the petitioner that, he was
working as Excise Police Constable in Kacheguda Police Station,
and upon the complaint of one Kethavath Ramiya Naik, an auto
driver, on 20.12.2018 alleging that the Sub-Inspector of Police
had demanded a bribe of Rs.15,000/- for releasing his auto
which was seized by the Prohibition & Excise Police, Kacheguda.
As such, a raid was conducted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau on
21.12.2008 at Mishal Café located at Ali Cafe "X" roads,
Amberpet, Hyderabad, where an amount of Rs.3,000/- was
recovered from the petitioner and it was alleged that he received
4 RRN,J
WP No.27062 of 2018
the same on behalf of V. Venkata Chary, S.I. of Police, and
phenolphthalein test was conducted on the petitioner and found
positive and on the ground that tainted amounts were recovered
from the petitioner and pursuant to it, the petitioner, and two SIs
of Police were arrested and remanded to judicial custody and
they were suspended.
2.1. It has further been contended by the petitioner that, a
crime vide Cr.No.38/ACB-CR.I/2008 was registered against the
three excise police, however, a final report dated 19.09.2012 was
filed closing the crime recommending to initiate Departmental
action instead of prosecution. The petitioner was reinstated into
service in the year 2010 and departmental proceedings were
initiated by citing V. Venkata Chary, S.I. of Police, as Charged
Government Servant-1, the petitioner as Charged Government
Servant-2, and N. Leander, S.I. of Police as Charged Government
Servant-3 by duly appointing Enquiry Officer. Upon extensive
enquiry, evidence, cross-examination of witnesses, the
departmental proceedings were concluded and the Enquiry
Officer vide his report dt.12.03.2015 found that charge against
Charged Government Servant-1 and Charged Government
Servant-3 were held not proved, whereas the charge against the
5 RRN,J
WP No.27062 of 2018
petitioner was held to be proved and the petitioner was
terminated from service vide proceedings of 3rd respondent
dt.07.12.2015 and consequential proceedings of the 2nd
respondent dt.27.07.2016 through which the appeal of the
petitioner was rejected and the proceedings of the 1st respondent
dated 13.03.2018 through which the review petition of the
petitioner was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ
petition.
3. Respondents filed counter by contending that the charge
against the petitioner was proved as the petitioner accepted an
amount of Rs.3,000/- from the complainant towards bribe and
the same was proved upon chemical tests on the currency notes
and the fingers of the petitioner. The respondents further
contended that no recovery was made from the other accused
and the claim of the petitioner that the accused no.1 was the
kingpin of the bribery was discarded and the charge against the
other accused is not proved, as such, no punishment was
imposed upon them. The respondents reiterated the observations
and conclusion of the report of the Enquiry Officer, Appellate
Authority and the Reviewing Authority opposed the case of the
6 RRN,J
WP No.27062 of 2018
petitioner. Therefore, there are no merits in the case and the
same is liable to be dismissed.
4. Heard Sri J. Sudheer, learned Counsel for appearing
for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services-I
appearing for the respondents. Perused the record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued
that injustice was meted out to the petitioner as the very
complaint was made against the S.I of Police with the allegation
of bribery who was cited as Accused No.1 in the Crime and such
Accused No.1 along with Accused No.3 was declared to be
innocent in the departmental proceedings, no question would
arise as to the involvement or guilt of the petitioner.
5.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the
notice of this Court that, in the common enquiry, the witnesses
are one and the same and when it was found that no charge was
proved against the Charged Government Servant Nos.1 and 3,
and held that the petitioner alone is found guilty and contended
that the same is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and the
same is liable to be set aside.
7 RRN,J
WP No.27062 of 2018
5.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended
that the recovered amount of Rs.3,000/- from the petitioner was
thrusted into his pocket by the complainant and the petitioner
never demanded any amount or facilitated for the alleged bribery,
and even assuming that the complainant's allegations are true,
the S.I V. Venkatachari and another S.I of Police were left scot-
free and for the sins of others, the petitioner cannot be put to
loss. Further, the appellate and reviewing authorities have not
discussed about these issues and have mechanically rejected the
appeal and review of the petitioner and confirmed the dismissal
orders. Hence, prayed to pass appropriate orders by setting aside
the impugned orders.
6. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for
Services-I contended that the charge against the petitioner was
proved as the petitioner accepted an amount of Rs.3,000/- from
the complainant towards bribe and the same was proved upon
chemical tests on the currency notes and the fingers of the
petitioner. The findings given by Enquiry Officer, Appellate
Authority and the Reviewing Authority are genuine and no
interference is required by this Court and prayed to dismiss the
Writ Petition.
8 RRN,J
WP No.27062 of 2018
7. This Court having considered the rival submissions of
the parties is of the considered view that, the respondents erred
in passing the impugned inquiry report by holding the charge
against the petitioner to be proved while the charges against the
Charged Government Servant No.1 and 3 were held to be not
proved. It is an admitted fact that the complainant made a
complaint against the Charged Government Servant-1 that he
demanded an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards bribe for releasing
of the seized auto of the complainant. Upon perusal of the entire
record, it is also evident that it is alleged that Charged
Government Servant-1 agreed to reduce the bribe amount to
Rs.6,000/- and when the version of the complainant was
discarded in the inquiry and it was held that the Charged
Government Servant Nos.1 and 3 were innocent of the charged
offences, no question would arise that the petitioner accepted any
bribe towards releasing of the seized auto and the case of the
respondents that the petitioner was found guilty basing on
preponderance of probability is not justified.
8. It is settled law that in every case where the main
accused is found to be innocent, the other accused must be given
the benefit of doubt when the allegations against the other
9 RRN,J
WP No.27062 of 2018
accused are read in totality of the alleged offence and the same
witnesses and evidence is relied up on. Further, assuming that
the petitioner was really guilty of the charge made against him,
the concept of preponderance of probability was not invoked
against the other Charged Government Servants as the very
complaint was made against the Charged Government Servants
No.1 and 3 who were left scot-free, which goes to show that when
all the three Charged Government Servants of same department
are involved in the alleged bribery, and when the other two
Charged Governments Servants who are superiors to the present
petitioner were left scot-free as the charge against them was not
proved, the petitioner cannot be made a scapegoat and
terminated from service, which is illegal. When the respondents
failed to prove the charges against Charged Government Servants
No.1 and 3, no question would arise that the petitioner was guilty
of the charged offences.
9. In view of foregoing discussion, the Writ Petition is
liable to be allowed.
10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting
aside the impugned proceedings dt.07.12.2015 through which
the petitioner was dismissed from service by the 3rd respondent,
10 RRN,J
WP No.27062 of 2018
consequential proceedings of the 2nd respondent dt.27.07.2016
through which the appeal of the petitioner was rejected and the
proceedings of the 1st respondent dt.12.03.2018 through which
the review petition of the petitioner was rejected. No order as to
costs.
Miscellaneous applications if any, pending, shall stand
closed.
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
6th day of January, 2023
BDR
