Telangana High Court

L.L.K. Reddy vs The State Of Telangana, on 20 September, 2023

Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi

       HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

               WRIT PETITION No.6879 of 2018

ORDER :

Petitioner is aggrieved of the action of respondents in

issuing order dated 16.03.2016 imposing the penalty of

withholding one annual grade increment with cumulative effect

and treating the suspension period of 168 days i.e. from 01.11.2013

to 17.04.2014 as 'not on duty'.

2. Heard Sri Bhargava Krishna, learned counsel for petitioner

and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for

respondents.

3. Petitioner was initially appointed as a Constable on

14.06.1985 in CRPF and subsequently, on 31.08.1993 he joined in

Special Protection Force (Police). On subsequent promotions, he is

now working as Sub-Inspector of Police and is posted at TSSPF,

Secretariat, Hyderabad. It is stated that while he was working as

Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police at TS GENCO, Nagarjuna Sagar

Dam, he was sent for training to the post of Sub-Inspector of

Police. During the course of training, the authorities conducted

JS, J W.P.No.6879 of 2018

indoor examination from 20.10.2013 to 25.10.2013. Alleging that

he resorted to impersonation in the said examination by writing the

examination for one Mr.S.Madhusudhan Rao, Assistant

Sub-Inspector of Police, he was placed under suspension vide

proceedings of respondent No.3, dated 01.11.2013. Petitioner was

furnished with memorandum of charge on 12.12.2013 and inquiry

was conducted by respondent No.4. In the inquiry, the petitioner

offered explanation pleading innocence. The inquiry officer,

without considering his pleadings, unilaterally concluded that the

charge against him was proved. Thereafter, the 4th respondent-

disciplinary authority issued memorandum dated 07.02.2014

calling for oral enquiry and the petitioner attended the same,

however, the said authority also, without considering his oral

explanation, straightaway recommended for punishment.

Thereafter, the 3rd respondent passed the impugned order dated

16.03.2016 imposing the penalty of withholding of one annual

grade increment with cumulative effect and also treating the

suspension period of 168 days from 01.11.2013 to 17.04.2014 as

'not on duty'. Thereafter, his suspension was revoked and he

JS, J W.P.No.6879 of 2018

joined duty with effect from 19.04.2014. His revision was also

rejected by the revisional authority. Hence, the writ petition.

4. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos.1, 2 and

4. In the counter affidavit, while giving the details of appointment

and subsequent promotions of petitioner, it is stated that a

departmental inquiry was conducted against the petitioner alleging

that he had indulged in impersonation by writing the answer sheet

of one Mr.S.Madhusudhan Rao, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police,

in the examination held at the Academy of Special Protection

Force, Ameenpur during the year 2013. Since the said charge

against the petitioner was proved, the impugned order dated

16.03.2016 is passed by the 3rd respondent, imposing the

punishment. Against the said order, petitioner has preferred appeal

before respondent No.2, who, after going through the entire record,

concluded that there was documentary evidence to show that the

petitioner had indulged in impersonation by writing the answer

sheet of one Mr.S.Madhusudhan Rao and accordingly rejected the

appeal by order dated 01.10.2016. Subsequently, the petitioner

preferred revision before respondent No.1, which was also rejected

JS, J W.P.No.6879 of 2018

by order dated 30.10.2017 with an observation that there was

documentary evidence about the petitioner's indulgence in

impersonation by writing the answer sheet of one

Mr.S.Madhusudhan Rao, which act is unbecoming of a

Government servant. It is stated in the counter affidavit that since

the petitioner's indulgence in impersonation is proved with

documentary evidence, the penalty of withholding of one annual

grade increment with cumulative effect was imposed by treating

the suspension period of 168 days i.e. from 01.11.2013 to

17.04.2014 as 'not on duty', which does not require any

interference and accordingly prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

5. The charge levelled against the petitioner is that during the

indoor examination conducted from 20.10.2013 to 25.10.2013, the

petitioner had resorted to impersonation by writing answers in the

answer sheet of one Mr.S.Madhusudhan Rao. In the inquiry report

dated 04.04.2014, it is observed by the inquiry officer that during

the course of oral inquiry, the charged officer has personally

admitted in his statement that he had written English abbreviations

in the paper of Sri S.Madhusudhan Rao, ASI-825 due to his health

JS, J W.P.No.6879 of 2018

condition. But, such oral statements cannot be made basis for

recording adverse findings in the inquiry proceedings. What is

required to prove the charge is concrete evidence in the form of

documents or statements of independent witnesses recorded by

following due procedure. In the inquiry report, the statement of

Mr.S.Madhusudhan Rao is extracted as under:

"I, S. Madhusudhan Rao, ASI-825 working as a Asst. Sub-Inspector in SPF unit, Midhani, Hyderabad since 17.06.2012.

I had attended ASI to SI cadre course from 01.09.2013 to 26.10.2013. In the part of training final examinations (Indoor) had conducted. In that exam, I am not taken any help from Sri L.L.K.Reddy, ASI- 843 and also he has not written any answers as well as bit paper abbreviations in any paper. But, on the pressure of officers I had written that, "Sri. L.L.K.Reddy had written in my paper". But, actually he had not written in my paper. Only on the honor of officers I had written like that. Hence, I may kindly be observed and will give suitable justice.

Cross Examination by the Charged Officer: Q1. Lot of candidates is there, but why should write my name in your statement ?

Ans: Your examination papers correction has already over, you are all passed, you have to write any one name in your statement. That is not effected on you. At that time I thought your name Sri. L.L.K.Reddy and same written in my statement."

JS, J W.P.No.6879 of 2018

6. Thus, it is clear from the statement of Mr. S.Madhusudhan

Rao that he has not taken any help from the petitioner herein and

though the petitioner did not write answers as well as bit paper

abbreviations in his answer sheet, he deposed against him due to

the pressure of officers. Further, in the cross-examination by the

petitioner herein, the said Madhusudhan Rao has stated that he had

written the name of petitioner on his paper as the petitioner's

examination papers were already corrected and he had already

passed. In view of contradictory versions in the statement of

Mr.S.Madhusudhan Rao, the same cannot be taken into

consideration in the absence of any other concrete evidence against

the petitioner. The petitioner, right from the beginning, has

categorically denied having helped Mr. S.Madhusudhan Rao.

In view of such denial, the respondents have to establish the charge

against the petitioner by producing proper evidence showing that

the petitioner had written answers in the answer sheet of Mr.

S.Madhusudhan Rao, to help him. Instead of it, the respondents

have relied on the statement of Mr.S.Madhusudhan Rao to the

effect that he had written the name of petitioner in his answer

JS, J W.P.No.6879 of 2018

sheet. Though the statement of Mr.S.Madhusudhan Rao cannot be

relied on for the reasons stated above, even if it is to be believed

to be correct for a moment, it is not known as to how the petitioner

is responsible for such act of Mr.S.Madhusudhan Rao writing in

his answer sheet, the name of petitioner.

7. Further, in this case, it is to be noted that no invigilator was

examined to prove the charge of impersonation against the

petitioner. The invigilator is the best person to establish the charge

of impersonation, as he would be present in the examination hall,

issue papers to the candidates and collect papers from them. If any

impersonation is committed by the candidates, it would be known

to the invigilator while collecting papers from them. No complaint

is lodged by the invigilator concerned against the petitioner with

regard to the alleged impersonation. However, steps were initiated

against the petitioner on the general allegation that mass

impersonation was committed in the said examination centre.

Since there is no complaint from the invigilator of the room where

the petitioner and Mr.S.Madhusudhan Rao have written the

JS, J W.P.No.6879 of 2018

examination and since such invigilator is not examined and his

statement is also not recorded, the inquiry proceedings get vitiated.

8. In support of his contention that admission made under

coercion cannot be taken into account, the learned counsel for

petitioner has relied on the judgment of this Court in Thotapalli

Radhakrishna Murthy v. The Divisional Manager, United

India Insurance Co. Ltd., Guntur 1, wherein, it is held as under:

"It is true that there cannot be better evidence than one's own admission but it is not safe to act upon the same when it is denied and when it is alleged to have been extracted by coercion".

9. The aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of

the present case, as in the present case also, Mr.S.Madhusudhan

Rao, in his statement, has stated that he deposed against the

petitioner due to the pressure of officers.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered

view that it can be safely said that the charge of impersonation

levelled against the petitioner is not proved in the proceedings

1982 SCC OnLine AP 376

JS, J W.P.No.6879 of 2018

initiated against him. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be

set aside.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the