Telangana High Court

Mohd. Ayoob vs The Commissioner Of Police on 31 March, 2023

Bench: K. Sarath

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
                            *****
               WRIT PETITION NO.14417 of 2021
Between:
Mohd. Ayoob
                                                     ...Petitioner

AND
     1. The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad and two others

                                                  ...Respondents

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 31.03.2023

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

1.    Whether   Reporters    of   Local :       Yes/No
      newspapers may be allowed to see
      the Judgment ?

2.    Whether the copies of judgment     :      Yes/No
      may be marked to Law
      Reports/Journals

3.    Whether Their Lordship/Ladyship    :      Yes/No
      wish to see the fair copy of
      judgment



                                             _____________________
                                             JUSTICE K.SARATH
                                          2
                                                                                 SK,J
                                                                 W.P.No.14417 of 2021




              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH


+WRIT PETITION NO.14417 of 2021


%Dated 31.03.2023

# Mohd.Ayoob

                                                                      ...Petitioner

AND

$ 1. The Commissioner of Police and two others
                                              ...Respondents

! Counsel for Petitioner :              Sri V.Ravichandran

^ Counsel for Respondent:               Sri M.V.Rama Rao
                                        Spl. Government Pleader for Home


< GIST :

> HEAD NOTE :
   1.   2004 (4) ALD 707
   2.   (2001) 10 SCC 530
   3.   (2002) 7 SCC 142
   4.   (2008) 3 SCC 484
   5.   2009 )5) ALD 1
   6.   Unreported judgment in
        WP No.26726 of 2011 dated 30.11.2022 of T.S.High Court
                               3
                                                              SK,J
                                              W.P.No.14417 of 2021




      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

          WRIT PETITION No.14417 of 2021

ORDER:

1. Heard Sri V.Ravi Chandran, 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

submits that while the petitioner was working as

Police Constable in Chandrayanagutta P.S, he was

placed under suspension along with one Sri Basheer

Ahmed, PC 9659 vide D.O.No.6454, No.L&O/B6/1773

dated 20.08.2015 on the ground that the said Sri

Basheer Ahmed indulged in corrupt practices and

endangered the safety and security of the Nation by

arranging the passports to illegal immigrants

SK,J W.P.No.14417 of 2021

fraudulently, and later he was reinstated into service

and posted to Dabeerpura PS on 03.10.2016.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further

submits that the respondent No.1 issued Articles of

Charges in PR No.79/2015 on 15.10.2015 framing a

charge against the petitioner and the petitioner has

submitted his explanation. The entire charge was

that by taking bribe from Basheer Ahmed, PC the

petitioner had forwarded Personal Particular Forms

(PPFs) without proper verification. The Enquiry Officer

held the charge as proved and the respondent No.1

has imposed the punishment of dismissal from service

of the petitioner on 13.07.2020. Aggrieved with the

same the petitioner had preferred Appeal to the

respondent No.2 duly highlighting the defects in the

Enquiry Report and the order of dismissal issued by

SK,J W.P.No.14417 of 2021

the respondent No.1 and pleaded that the petitioner

all though had an unblemished service and the charge

of taking bribe was not established in the enquiry. The

appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by an order

dated 26.11.2020 while mentioning that it is difficult

to find direct evidence for taking bribe. Against the

orders in appeal the petitioner filed Revision and the

same was also rejected by the Government on

04.06.2021.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further

submits that the allegation against the petitioner was

that of connivance with another police constable and

receiving bribe, a duty was cast upon the disciplinary

authority to prove the charge by letting in evidence.

Neither the said Police Constable Ahmed nor Agent

Ansari was examined during the course of enquiry and

SK,J W.P.No.14417 of 2021

their names were not shown in the list of witnesses.

The witnesses who were examined during the enquiry

have not spoken anything about bribe giving and

receiving.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further

submits that the very basis for framing of charge and

the finding of the Enquiry Officer was based on no

evidence and it is settled law that the conclusions

based on surmises and conjectures could be

interdicted. In the instant case no evidence was

produced on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority to

establish the allegation of connivance and bribe taking

and in the absence of the same the findings of the

Enquiry Officer would be rendered erroneous and

perverse and any punishment imposed based on such

findings is bad in law.

SK,J W.P.No.14417 of 2021

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits

that the Enquiry Officer and the respondent No.1 had

overlooked the fact that none of the witnesses deposed

about the petitioner receiving any bribe and the

appellate Authority having stated that it is difficult to

prove the allegations of bribe went on to dismiss the

appeal. The Government while rejecting the Revision

has failed to assign any reasons and mechanically

rejected the Revision petition. The respondents ought

to have considered when loss of livelihood is involved

and any administrative or quasi judicial order is

having adverse consequences assigning of reasons is

mandatory.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits

that after disposal of the revision petition, the

petitioner came to know that in similar instances,

SK,J W.P.No.14417 of 2021

which had occurred in the same Department and the

individuals who faced similar charges as that of the

petitioner and against whom charges were held proved,

they were imposed lesser punishments viz.,

postponement of increments with cumulative effect

vide D.O.No.1260/HCP/BI/B6/0002 /2018-22 dated

15.02.2022 in respect of Mr.K.Veera Babu, P.C. and

D.O.No.1128/HCP/BI/B6/0004/2020-22 dated

11.02.2022 in respect of Sri N.Srinivasa Raju, PC,

issued by the respondent No.1. The above facts

would establish that action of the respondents in

imposition of punishment of dismissal from service

per se discriminatory and the same is shockingly

disproportionate. It is settled law that the High

Courts and the Tribunals are entitled to determine

whether the relevant evidence was taken into

SK,J W.P.No.14417 of 2021

consideration or not and requested to allow the writ

petition.

8. The learned Counsel in support of his contentions

relied on the following judgments:

1. B.Ramchandra Rao (died) by LRs Vs. Syndicate Bank and another1

2. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd., Vs. Jitendra Pd. Singh and another2

3. Sher Bahadur Vs. Union of India and others3

4. Moni Shankar Vs. Union of India and another 4

5. K.Bala Rama Raju Vs. High Court of Andhra Pradesh and another 5

9. The learned Special Government Pleader for

Home, basing on the counter, submits that the

1. 2004 (4) ALD 707

2. (2001) 10 SCC 530

3. (2002) 7 SCC 142

4. (2008) 3 SCC 484

5. 2009 )5) ALD 1

SK,J W.P.No.14417 of 2021

petitioner indulged in corrupt practices and

endangered and security of the Nation by forwarding

the Personal Particulars Forms from his jurisdiction

and the petitioner not only tarnished the image of the

Department by improper Enquiry, but also acted in

most unbecoming Member of Government Service and

thereby contravened Rule 3 (1) (2) and (3) of TCS

(Conduct) Rules, 1964.

10. The learned Special Government Pleader further

submits that the charges made against the petitioner

were proved and in the light of instructions contained

in G.O.Ms.No.458, General Administration (Ser.C)

Department dated 22.09.2009 the punishment of

Dismissal from service was awarded and the

suspension period of the period w.e.f. 20.08.2015 to

02.09.2016 was treated as not on duty. There is

SK,J W.P.No.14417 of 2021

nothing illegal on the part of the respondents in

issuing the impugned order as disciplinary action was

taken strictly in accordance with the Telangana Civil

Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,

1991 and punishment was imposed as per Standing

Orders of the Government.

11. The learned Special Government Pleader further

submits that the appellate authority had gone through

the appeal petition and connected PR records and

minutely and the appeal petition was rejected vide

Proceeding Rc.No.307/T2/2020 dated 26.11.2020

stating that there are no valid grounds to set aside the

penalty and the Government vide Memo

No.607/Ser.II/A1/20201, Home (Ser.II) Department

dated 04.06.2021 had rejected the revision petition of

SK,J W.P.No.14417 of 2021

the petitioner as per rules and requested to dismiss

the writ petition.

12. After hearing both sides this Court of is the

considered view that that the respondents have

imposed major punishment of dismissal from service

against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner

without verification submitted S.B reports for issuance

of passports to illegal immigrants, by taking bribe

from them.

13. The charge against the petitioner is as follows:

" Sri Md.Ayoob, PC, 9400 of SB City, Hyderabad has exhibited grave misconduct, lack of integrity and moral turpitude towards his legitimate duties even after knowing about the illegal practice of Sri Basher Ahmed, PC 9669 of SB City, Hyderabad with connivance of the agent Ansari arranging passports to illegal migrants fraudulently had forwarded the PPFs allotted to him on the request of Sri Basheer Ahmed, PC 9669 of SB City, Hyderabad, by taking bribe"

SK,J W.P.No.14417 of 2021

14. In the instant case, none of the witnesses have

deposed that the petitioner received bribe and the

appellate authority have stated in the rejection order in

the appeal that it is difficult to prove the allegation of

bribe and the Government also without assigning any

reason rejected the revision petition of the petitioner.

15. The judgments relied on by the learned Counsel

for the petitioner squarely apply to the instant case.

16. In B.Ramchandra Rao (died) by LRs Vs. Syndicate

Bank and another (Supra 1), this Court held that:

"Mere suspicion should not be allowed to take the place of proof even in domestic enquiries"

17. In Shankar Bahadur Vs Union of India (supra 3), the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that:

SK,J W.P.No.14417 of 2021

"The expression 'sufficiency evidence" postulates existence of some evidence which links the charged officer with the misconduct alleged against him. Evidence, however, voluminous it may be, which is neither relevant in a broad sense nor establishes any nexus between the alleged misconduct and the charged officer, is no evidence in law. The mere fact that the enquiry officer has noted in his report, "in view of oral, documentary and circumstantial evidence as adduced in the enquiry", would not in principle satisfy the rule of sufficiency of evidence".

In the instant case also there is no evidence to

prove that the petitioner received money and the same

was accepted by the appellate authority in its order

and stated that it is difficult to prove the allegation of

bribe.

18. In Moni Shankar Vs. Unionof India and another

(supra 4), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India,

at para No.15, held that:

"Although the provisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable in the said proceeding, principles of natural justice are required to be complied with. The Court exercising power of judicial review are

SK,J W.P.No.14417 of 2021

entitled to consider as to whether while inferring commission of misconduct on the part of a delinquent officer relevant piece of evidence has been taken into consideration and irrelevant facts have been excluded therefrom. Inference on facts must be based on evidence which meet the requirements of legal principles".

19. In K.Bala Ramaju Vs High Court of Andhra Pradesh,

Hyderabad (supra 5), at para No.47 this Court held that:

"This Court in the normal circumstances would not have interfered with the findings of fact recorded at the domestic enquiry, even if there is some evidence on recorded which is acceptable and which could be relied, however, compendious it may be. The findings would be of two kinds, basic and ultimate. The ultimate findings could be reached only on the basic facts. If the basic facts do not exist or it is not accepted, there cannot be an ultimate finding. In the instant case, the basic facts were denied and did not exist as those against whom the offences was said to have been committed, denied that the offence has ever been committed against them. Insofar as charges 1 and 3 are concenred, as discussed supra, the same were denied by the very persons who were said to have been involved and gains that the alleged violations had occurred. In sofaras charge No.2 is concerned the accused in CC no.113 of 20205 admitted the offence and paid the

SK,J W.P.No.14417 of 2021

fine and that the petitioner made an endorsement on the charge sheet-. The finding of the Enquiry Officer that the petitioenr added his name as a witness is also not correct. With regard to charge No.4 (a), no specific words of abuse were mentioned either in the complaint or in the Articles of Charges. Nobody was examined to demonstrate that he was personally abused or ill-treated. So also finding on charge No.4 (e) which is not proved on facts at all. On what date the incident is alleged to have happened was not at aall indicated. The witness also speak only about a single incident wherein the petitioner allegled a tumbler. This can hardly be a foundation to conclude that he was in the habit of breaking tumbler".

20. The punishment imposed on the petitioner was

dismissal from service and in respect of similarly

situated persons, in spite of charges against them

were proved the respondents have imposed lesser

punishments i.e. postponement of increments with

cumulative effect, vide D.O.No.1260/HCP/BI/B6

/0002/2018-22 dated 15.02.2022 issued by the

SK,J W.P.No.14417 of 2021

respondent No.1 herein in respect of Mr.K.Veera Babu,

P.C., and D.O.No.1128/HCP/BI/B6/0004/2020-22

dated 11.02.2022 issued by the respondent No.1 in

respect of Sri N.Srinivasa Raju, PC.

17. In Tata Engineering and Locomotives Co. Ltd., Vs.

Jitendra Pd. Singh and another (supra 2), the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India held that:

"who are facing similar set of charges and proved against them, there cannot be parity in punishments".

In the instant case the respondents singled out

the petitioner by imposing punishment of dismissal

and the individuals who faced similar charges that of

the petitioner and against whom the charges were

proved they were imposed lesser punishments i.e.

postponement of increments.

SK,J W.P.No.14417 of 2021

22. Recently, the Division Bench of this Court

passed orders in similar circumstances in K.Rajendra

Prasad Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh6, squarely

apply to the instant case. The operative portion of the

said judgment is as follows:

"..... Hence, this Court is of the considered view that by following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Naresh Chandra Bharadwaj that the punishment of dismissal as imposed by the respondents on the petitioner deserves to be modified to that of compulsory retirement because the disciplinary authority must consider the parity of punishment while imposing on the other two employees. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered view that the punishment by the disciplinary authority be modified to that of compulsory retirement".

23. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case

and Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this

Court, the Writ Petition is disposed of by setting aside

the impugned order in DO No.4471

6 Unreported judgment in W.P.No.26726 of 2011 Dated 30.11.2022 of T.S.High Court

SK,J W.P.No.14417 of 2021

(L&O/B6/1773/2015-20) dated 13.07.2020 issued by

the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, and its

consequential orders passed in appeal by the

respondent No.2 in Rc.No.307/T2/2020 dated

26.11.2020 and the orders passed in Revision by the

Government in Memo No.607/Ser.II/2021, Home