M. Gangadhar vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 2329 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

                     W.P.No. 43393 of 2022

ORDER:

In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the Writ

of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned

proceedings in Memorandum PR.No.B1/03/Cyb/2022, dated

25.04.2022 initiated by the respondent No.2 under Rule 20 of

the Telangana State Civil Services (Classification, Control and

Appeal) Rules, 1991, as bad, illegal, arbitrary and contrary to

the rules as laid down in Telangana State Civil Services

(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and

consequently to set aside the same and to pass such other order

or orders.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ

petition are that the petitioner is working as Inspector of Police

in P.S.Narsingi. He was placed under suspension vide orders

dated 23.10.2021 on the allegations that the petitioner being

Station House Officer, P.S.Narsingi, was found to have resorted

to excessive use of law and has exhibited over enthusiasm and

misused his powers by influencing the Investigating Officer in

adding Sections 307 and 434 of IPC on the strength of two eye

PMD,J W.P.No. 43393 of 2022

witnesses and subsequently, arrested one Y.Bhaskar Rao, the

Manager of M/s.One and Cadol Projects in haste and that while

adding the grave Sections of 307, 434 of IPC in FIR No.175 of

2021, the writ petitioner and his other subordinate did not

conduct proper investigation. Subsequently, the petitioner was

reinstated into service and allotted to CCS, Hyderabad

Commissionerate. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 issued the

impugned proceedings in Memorandum PR.No.B1/03/

Cyb/2022, dated 25.04.2022, proposing to hold an enquiry

against the petitioner and the Sub Inspector of Police,

Sri.R.Laxman in accordance with the procedure laid down in

Rule 20 of the Telangana State Civil Services (Classification,

Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. Challenging the same, the

present writ petition has been filed.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ

petition are that while the petitioner was working as a Station

House Officer, P.S.Narsingi, on 20.02.2021 at about 8 p.m., a

complaint was received from one Mr.S.Vishwanadha Raju, aged

73 years, R/o.Gajularamaram Village, Quthbullapur Mandal-

Medchal Malkajgiri District. The contents of the complaint were

that one J.Jagannath Reddy, was the Principal Pattedar of the

PMD,J W.P.No. 43393 of 2022

land admeasuring 33 acres of land in Sy.No.885 (old),

Sy.No.696 (new) in Janwada Village of Shankarpally Mandal

under Narsingi P.S., and he has given GPA for Acs.33-00gts., to

one Ramchandra Singh vide document No.2546/1990 and

alienated the subject property and that in the year 1990, the

complainant Mr.S.Vishwanadha Raju purchased land to the

extent of Ac.4-00 gts., in Sy.No.696 (old Sy.No.885) from out of

the above Ac.33-00 gts., from the Pattedar through the

registered GPA holder, Ramachandra Singh vide document

No.15038/1990 and erected a room in the year 1998 and he

used to stay there whenever he was visiting the land.

Subsequently, one person by name Shankar, purchased

another Ac.4-00gts., of land from out of above Ac.33-00gts., vide

document No.3336/1991 and had requested the complainant to

look after the Ac.4-00 gts., in the year 2015 by giving him a

GPA. In the meantime, after the demise of Jagannath Reddy, his

legal heirs namely Dilip Reddy, Pradeep Reddy, Krishna Kumari

and Kiran Reddy, despite knowing that their father executed

registered GPA for the entire Ac.33-00 gts., to Ramachandra

Singh, sold the same Ac.33-00 gts., including the subject

property of 8 Acres duly suppressing the facts through

Agreement-cum-GPA vide document No.6242/2005 to Sriven

PMD,J W.P.No. 43393 of 2022

Constructions Company, represented by Dr.C.Murali Mohan,

who in turn, executed sale deeds in the year 2007 in favour of

one Ravinder Reddy and his family. The complaint stated that

Mr.Ravinder Reddy, his Manger, Bhaskar Rao and his

henchmen have been threatening the complainant and trying to

trespass into his land since 2018 and have criminally

trespassed into his land on 20.02.2021 and started demolishing

the room with a JCB vehicle without number plate while he was

in the room. He stated that the said vehicle was driven by one

Nagani Srikanth while a Tractor bearing No. TS 07UJ 0915 was

driven by Chittepu Vikram Reddy and they all threatened him to

vacate the land and have forcibly demolished the room and

taken away his agriculture tools and threatened him with dire

consequences. It was further stated that the accused have

created documents through double registration with an

intention to grab his land including Ac.33-00 guntas. Sri

Sridhar, Admin SI of Narsingi P.S., registered his complaint as

Cr.No.175/2021, under Sections 420, 447, 427 and 506 r/w 34

IPC and handed over the CD file to Sri R.Laxman, Sector SI for

investigation. It is submitted that Sri Viswanadha Raju,

Complainant had earlier filed three complaints dated

11.10.2019, 06.11.2019 and 13.02.2021 in Narsingi P.S., (two

PMD,J W.P.No. 43393 of 2022

complaints were before the petitioner has taken charge as SHO,

Narsingi PS.,). It is stated that in all the three complaints, he

has mentioned that he has been enjoying the peaceful

possession of 8 Acres of land falling in Sy.No.885 (old) and 696

(new) of Janwada Village and he has been facing threat to his

life and property from Mr.Ravinder Reddy and others. Sri

R.Laxman, SI, visited the scene of offence and did preliminary

investigation and recorded the statements of independent eye

witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in Part-II CD and as per

CD file and copies of the documents, certain facts came to light

which are ennumerated by the petitioner in his affidavit in

Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the writ petition. It is stated that the

complainant, in his complaint has clearly mentioned that

demolition process was commenced while he was physically

available in the room and that he was also stated the same in

Part-II CD statement and no effort was made to improve the

statement as there was no need to do so. It is submitted that

the Investigation Officer of the case, Sri Laxman, Sector SI,

discussed with all the concerned Officers and on their

instructions, met the Legal Adviser, C.P. Office and on his

advice, he decided to add Sections 307 and 434 of IPC to the

case with the concurrences of the ACP, DCP and Commissioner

PMD,J W.P.No. 43393 of 2022

of Police. It is stated that the Investigation Officer produced the

accused before the Court with a remand report and the Court

after considering the remand report, remanded the accused to

judicial custody. It is submitted that the case was registered on

20.02.2021 and the accused was arrested and remanded to

judicial custody on 29.02.2021 and the then CP entrusted

investigation of the case to ACP Madhapur and CD was sent to

the ACP on 06.03.2021. It is submitted that the criminal case

only against Mr.B.Ravinder Reddy and Mr.Bhaskara Rao was

quashed on 01.04.2021. It is submitted that the CD file has

been with the ACP only from 06.03.2021, though he was

investigating the case right from 06.03.2021 and despite

knowing all the facts, circumstances, discussions and

concurrences given by the officers relating to the case right from

registration of the case including adding Sections 307 and 434

of IPC, he sent the report on 23.10.2021 i.e., after a long lapse

of more than 7½ months and that too, after the transfer of the

then Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad and at no point of time,

the ACP or DCP issued any memo to the petitioner calling for

any explanation on any lapses. It is submitted that the

petitioner has neither exhibited any misconduct nor brought

any influence or pressure on the Investigation Officer to add

PMD,J W.P.No. 43393 of 2022

Sections 307 and 434 of IPC and that the Investigation Officer

added Sections 307 and 434 of IPC as per the merits of the

statements of the witnesses, investigation done by him and also

on the instructions of the higher officers and the advice

tendered by the legal adviser. It is stated that the petitioner has

been working sincerely without any complaints and in fact, he

had earned nearly 200 awards for his meritorious service. It is

submitted that in response to the suspension order, the

petitioner has submitted his explanation dated 23.02.2022 and

thereafter, the suspension order was revoked vide orders dated

26.02.2022, but immediately thereafter, the impugned

proceedings were issued which affects not only his rights but

also his promotion and other career benefits. It is submitted

that the writ petitioner categorically denied the imputations

made against him and submitted that the investigation was

done under the supervision of his higher authorities and though

the accused have initiated proceedings only subsequent to

transfer of the then Commissioner, further the DCP and ACP

remains same under whose supervision only the investigation

was conducted and provisions of under Section 307 was added,

but the said officers have given adverse remarks against the

petitioner without raising any objections at the time of adding

PMD,J W.P.No. 43393 of 2022

the said provisions by the Investigation Officer. It is further

submitted that the proceedings were initiated merely on the

ground that the criminal petition has been quashed against

Mr.Ravinder Reddy and Mr.Bhaskar Rao and not against other

accused. It is submitted that counter complaint was also taken

and a case was registered against Sri.Viswanadha Raju, who is

the complainant in Cr.No.175 of 2021. It is thus submitted that

there are no merits in the imputations made in the impugned

proceedings issued by the respondent No.2 and the same is

contrary to the TSCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 and he therefore

sought to set aside of the impugned proceedings dated

25.04.2022 and to pass such other order or orders.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner

while reiterating the above averments, submitted that the

allegations in the charge memo are vague without giving any

details and therefore, any enquiry with such vague allegations

will cause grave injustice to the petitioner. It is submitted that

the FIR was registered in February, 2021 while the charge

memo was issued in the year 2022. It is further submitted that

in June, 2021 there was a survey conducted by the Revenue

Officials in respect of the subject land. It is submitted that the

PMD,J W.P.No. 43393 of 2022

petitioner is not the Investigation Officer, but he is only an SHO

and therefore, he has not directly involved in the investigation of

the case and therefore, the imputations made against him are

not sustainable. He placed reliance upon the Judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anant.R.Kulakarni Vs.

Y.P.Educational Society and Others 1, for the proposition that

it is not permissible to hold an enquiry on vague charges, as the

same do not give a clear picture to the delinquent to make out an

effective defence as he will be unaware of the exact nature of the

allegations against him, and what kind of defence he should put

up for rebuttal thereof. It is also held that where the charge sheet

is accompanied by the statement of facts and the allegations are

not specific in the charge sheet, but are crystal clear from the

statement of facts, in such a situation, as both constitute the

same document, it cannot be held that as the charges were not

specific, definite and clear, the enquiry stood vitiated. Thus,

nowhere should a delinquent be served a charge sheet, without

providing to him, a clear, specific and definite description of the

charges against him. He submitted that in this case, since the

charges are not clear and is not accompanied by a statement of

1 (2013) 6 SCC 515

PMD,J W.P.No. 43393 of 2022

facts, the enquiry on the basis of such vague charges, is not

justifiable nor is it sustainable.

5. Learned Special Government Pleader for Home,

however, submitted that a joint charge memo was issued to the

petitioner as well as the Sub Inspector of Police, R.Laxman, who

conducted investigation and the petitioner has submitted his

explanation. He submitted that from the said reply, it is very

clear that the petitioner has understood the charges against him

and therefore, it cannot be said that charge memo is vague and

unclear. It is submitted that the judgment cited by the learned

senior counsel is not applicable. He further relied upon the

allegations made in the charge memo dated 25.04.2022.

6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the

material on record, this Court finds that the petitioner was

earlier placed under suspension vide memo dated 23.10.2021,

which was subsequently revoked and he was again placed

under suspension vide proceedings dated 25.04.2022. While the

first charge is that the petitioner has exhibited grave

misconduct and misused his official powers for issuing illegal

orders and influencing the Sector SI Sri R.Laxman to do a

favour, the second charge is that the High Court has quashed

PMD,J W.P.No. 43393 of 2022

the FIR No.175/2021 against the sections of law 307, 434, 420,

447, 427 and 506 read with 34 IPC in Criminal Petition No.1554

of 2021 and therefore, it is a bad remark on the Department.

From these two charges, it does not come out as to how the

petitioner has influenced or pressurized the Sector SI Sri

R.Laxman to do a favour to the complainant. As seen from the

contents of the complaint, the complainant himself has stated

that there is a threat to his life. He also affirmed the said

contention in the statement recorded by the SI. When such is

the case, adding Sections 307 and 434 of IPC by the Sector SI in

the FIR, may not be without any basis. Further, the petitioner

being the SHO, was not involved in the investigation of the case.

In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner is

responsible for adding of Sections 307 and 434 of IPC in the FIR

and particularly when the same is done with the approval of the

higher authorities such as ACP and DCP of the said

P.S.Narsingi. In view of the same, the contentions of the

petitioner that the charges against the petitioner are vague, is

substantiated. Further, as seen from the memo filed for adding

the Sections 307 and 434 of IPC to the FIR, it was done on the

basis of the statement of the complainant and other witnesses.

Further, from the copy of the letter submitted by the petitioner

PMD,J W.P.No. 43393 of 2022

on 01.03.2021, it is also noticed that the petitioner himself has

requested to transfer the case to CCS or to any superior officer

as there was pressure and undue influence brought in by the

accused against the arrest of A5 and A6.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further relied

upon the G.O.Rt.No.332, dated 08.07.2021 wherein the

Government has decided to file an SLP against the order of High

Court quashing the FIR. Therefore, he submitted that on one

hand, the respondents have issued a charge memo to the

petitioner stating that there is dereliction of duty on his part in

pressurizing the Sector SI to include the Sections 307 and 434

of IPC and on the other hand, the respondents are taking steps

to file an SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the

order of High Court. Therefore, he submitted that adding of

Sections 307 and 434 of IPC is purely on the basis of the

statements given by the complainant as well as other eye

witnesses and alleging that the petitioner has expressed over

enthusiasm in registering the case and adding the Sections 307

and 434 of IPC is without any basis and that he was in no way

concerned with the investigation.

PMD,J W.P.No. 43393 of 2022

8. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this

Court is of the opinion that the charges in the charge memo

dated 25.04.2022 are vague and thereby putting the petitioner

at a disadvantage to counter the same with any contentions to

the contrary.

9(i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surath

Chandra Chakrabarty Vs. State of West Bengal 2, has

considered similar issue and has held as under:

We have no manner of doubt that the appellant was denied a proper and reasonable opportunity of defending himself by reason of the charges being altogether vague and indefinite and the statement of allegations containing the material facts and particulars not having been supplied to him. In this situation, for the above reason alone, the Trial Judge was fully justified in decreeing the suit.

(ii) Further in the case of Government of A.P. and

Others Vs. A.Venkata Ryudu 3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

reiterated that the charge sheet should not be vague but should

be specific.

(iii) In the case of Anant.R.Kulakarni (cited supra), the

Hon'ble Apex Court has further explained the concept of

2 1970 (3) SCC 548 3 (2007) 1 SCC 338

PMD,J W.P.No. 43393 of 2022

Principles of Natural Justice in Departmental Proceedings by

observing as under:

15. In Surath Chandra Chakrabarty v. State of W.B. [(1970) 3 SCC 548 : AIR 1971 SC 752] this Court held, that it is not permissible to hold an enquiry on vague charges, as the same do not give a clear picture to the delinquent to make out an effective defence as he will be unaware of the exact nature of the allegations against him, and what kind of defence he should put up for rebuttal thereof. The Court observed as under : (SCC p. 553, para 5) "5. ... The grounds on which it is proposed to take action have to be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges which have to be communicated to the person charged together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and any other circumstance which it is proposed to be taken into consideration in passing orders has also to be stated. This rule embodies a principle which is one of the specific contents of a reasonable or adequate opportunity for defending oneself. If a person is not told clearly and definitely what the allegations are on which the charges preferred against him are founded, he cannot possibly, by projecting his own imagination, discover all the facts and circumstances that may be in the contemplation of the authorities to be established against him."

(emphasis supplied)

16. Where the charge-sheet is accompanied by the statement of facts and the allegations are not specific in the charge-sheet, but are crystal clear from the statement of facts, in such a situation, as both constitute the same document, it cannot be held that as the charges were not specific, definite and clear, the enquiry stood vitiated. Thus, nowhere should a delinquent be served a charge-sheet, without providing to him, a clear, specific and definite description of the charge against him. When statement of allegations are not served with the charge-sheet, the enquiry stands vitiated, as having been conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. The evidence adduced should not be perfunctory; even if the delinquent does not take the defence of, or make a protest that the charges are vague, that does not save the enquiry from being vitiated, for the reason that there must be fair play in action, particularly in respect of an order involving adverse or penal consequences. What is required to be examined is whether the delinquent knew the nature of accusation. The charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges and no enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. (Vide State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao [AIR 1963 SC 1723] , Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan [(1986) 3 SCC 454 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 662 : AIR 1986 SC 995] , U.P. SRTC v. Ram Chandra Yadav [(2000) 9 SCC 327 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 79 : AIR 2000 SC 3596] , Union of India v. Gyan Chand

PMD,J W.P.No. 43393 of 2022

Chattar [(2009) 12 SCC 78 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 129] and Anil Gilurker v. Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank [(2011) 14 SCC 379 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 926] .)

17. The purpose of holding an enquiry against any person is not only with a view to establish the charges levelled against him or to impose a penalty, but is also conducted with the object of such an enquiry recording the truth of the matter, and in that sense, the outcome of an enquiry may either result in establishing or vindicating his stand, and hence result in his exoneration. Therefore, fair action on the part of the authority concerned is a paramount necessity.

10. Therefore, applying the above rationale to the facts

of this case, it is clear that the impugned charge memo is in

violation of principles of natural justice and hence

unsustainable. The impugned order is accordingly set aside.

11. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ

petition, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI Date: 14.09.2023 bak

PMD,J W.P.No. 43393 of 2022

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

W.P.No. 43393 of 2022

Dated: 14.09.2023

bak