E. Sakru Naik vs The Superintendent Of Police, ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2611 Tel

         HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

           WRIT PETITION (TR) No.3233 of 2017

ORDER:

The petitioner filed O.A.No.229 of 2015 before

Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad,

questioning the impugned proceedings C.No.15/A6-

1/OE/2005, DO.No.2348/2013 dated 18.09.2013 issued

by respondent No.1 and R.O.No.1125/2013,

Rc.No.2044/D1-135/Appl-53/HR/2013, dt.26.12.2013

issued by respondent No.2 and R.O.No.144/2014,

Rc.No.76/PR/Revn/W.Z/2014 dated 09.05.2014 issued

by respondent No.3 and quash the same.

2. Heard Sri A. Thirupathi Goud, learned counsel for

the petitioner and Sri M.V.Rama Rao, learned Special

Government Pleader for home.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

petitioner was appointed as police constable w.e.f on

02.02.1992. While working at Chintapalli Police Station,

he was placed under suspension on 03.05.2005 on the

allegation that while discharging the roof sentry post on

30.04.2005, he got down at 17.30 hrs., and asked one

complainant namely Budhia Naik to bring a cigarette

packet, when questioned by ASI as to why he left his

sentry post and asked him to go back, the petitioner

abused him in filthy language by using unparliamentary

words and picked up quarrel with him in drunken state.

Thereafter, respondent No.1 issued articles of charges in

C.No.15/OE/PR/2005 dated 12.05.2005. Pursuant to the

same, petitioner submitted detailed explanation denying

the charges leveled against him. Respondent No.1 being

not satisfied with the same, ordered regular enquiry and

respondent No.1 imposed major punishment of PPI for two

years, solely basing on the enquiry officer report dated

31.03.2006 and the same is contrary to law.

3.1. He further contended that respondent No.1 has not

furnished the documents which are mentioned along with

the annexure-II of the articles of charge dated 12.05.2005

and in spite of his request, the enquiry officer conducted

enquiry in a biased manner without giving opportunity to

the petitioner to cross-examine the witness and without

following the principles of natural justice submitted

enquiry report on 31.03.2006 holding that charges leveled

against the petitioner are proved. The respondent No.1-

disciplinary authority without verifying the documents on

record, imposed major punishment through order dated

18.09.2013 only basing on the enquiry report. Aggrieved

by the same, petitioner filed appeal and the appellate

authority without giving opportunity to the petitioner

rejected the appeal without giving any reasons by its order

26.12.2013. Thereafter, petitioner filed revision petition

and revisional authority simply rejected the same on

09.05.2014.

3.2. Learned counsel vehemently contended that the

appellate authority as well as the revisional authority

passed cryptic orders rejecting the appeal and revision

without giving opportunity to the petitioner and without

appreciating the grounds raised therein and the same is

clear violation of principles of natural justice. He further

contended that basing on the very same charges Crime

No.54 of 2005 was registered against the petitioner for the

offence under Section 332 of IPC and in the said case

Judicial First Class Magistrate at Devarakonda passed

judgment in CC.No.537 of 2007 on 26.07.2013, acquitting

the petitioner by giving cogent findings and the said

judgment has become final.

3.3. He further contended that the witnesses who are

examined in the disciplinary proceedings issued by

respondent and the witnesses examined in the Criminal

Case i.e., CC.No.537 of 2007 are one and the same and

the Criminal Court after considering the depositions of the

witnesses and documentary evidence on record held that

the petitioner is not guilty for the offence punishable

under Section 332 of IPC. The said judgment was

produced before respondent No.1, but without considering

the same, he imposed major punishment of PPI for two

years with effect on future increments and pension and

treated the suspension period as not on duty and the

same is contrary to law.

4. Per contra, learned Special Government Pleader

submits that respondent No.1 after following the due

procedure as contemplated under law issued articles of

charge on 12.05.2005 and pursuant to the same, the

petitioner submitted explanation. After considering the

explanation, respondent No.1 ordered regular enquiry by

appointing enquiry officer. During the course enquiry, the

enquiry officer has given all opportunities to the petitioner

to defend his case. The enquiry officer after conducting

detailed enquiry submitted enquiry report on 31.03.2006

holding that the charges leveled against the petitioner

were proved. Thereafter, respondent No.1 issued notice

through memo C.No.15/OE/2006 dated 28.09.2006, by

enclosing the enquiry report, directing the petitioner to

submit explanation as to why the proposed punishment

should not be imposed and after considering the

representation dated 10.11.2006 of the petitioner and

also after examining the entire records including the

enquiry officer report, he rightly passed the impugned

order dated 18.09.2013 imposing punishment of PPI for

two years with effect on future increments and pension

and treated the suspension period as "not on duty" and

the same was confirmed by the appellate authority as well

as revisional authority on 26.12.2013 and 09.05.2014

respectively.

4.1. He further contended that petitioner has not raised

any objection that the respondent No.1 had not furnished

the documents along with Articles of Charge. Respondent

No.1 furnished all the documents which are mentioned in

the Articles of charges while issuing the same on

12.05.2005. Similarly, enquiry officer has followed entire

procedure and given all opportunities to the petitioner to

defend his case.

4.2. He further contended that in the Criminal Court,

petitioner was acquitted only on the ground that eye

witnesses turned hostile. Whereas in the disciplinary

proceedings the charges leveled against the petitioner

were proved and the judgment passed in the Criminal

Case is nothing to do with the disciplinary proceedings

and there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned

order passed by the respondents.

5. Having considered the rival submissions made by

respective parties and upon perusal of the material

available on record, it clearly reveals that respondent No.1

suspended the petitioner from services on 03.05.2005

pending enquiry. Thereafter, respondent No.1 issued

articles of charges dated 12.05.2005 stating that the

petitioner while discharging the roof sentry post on

30.04.2005, he got down at 17.30 hrs., and asked one

complainant namely Budhia Naik to bring a cigarette

packet when questioned by ASI as to why he left his

centry post and asked him to go back, the petitioner

abused him in filthy language by using unparliamentary

words and pick up quarrel with him in drunken state and

not satisfying with the explanation submitted by the

petitioner, respondent No.1 ordered regular enquiry by

appointing enquiry officer and the enquiry officer has

given all opportunities to the petitioner to defend his case

and recorded the statement of respective witness who are

examined and also given opportunity to the petitioner to

cross examine the witness and thereafter submitted report

holding that the charges leveled against the petitioner

were proved. Respondent No.1 issued show cause notice

directing the petitioner to submit his explanation as to

why the proposed punishment should not be imposed by

furnishing the enquiry report through memo dated

28.09.2006. Thereafter, passed the impugned order on

18.09.2003 imposing the punishment of PPI for two years

with effect on future increments and pension and treated

the suspension period from 03.05.2005 to 02.02.2006 as

"not on duty". Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner

filed appeal before appellate authority and the same was

rejected on 26.12.2013 and further the petitioner filed

revision before revisional authority and the same was also

dismissed on 09.05.2014 upholding the punishment order

passed by respondent No.1.

6. It is very much relevant to mention here that in the

counter affidavit respondents specifically pleaded that

they have furnished all the documents to the petitioner

which are mentioned in the articles of charge dated

12.05.2005. Hence the contention of the petitioner that

the documents were not furnished to the petitioner while

issuing articles of charge on 12.05.2005 is not tenable

under law in the absence of any denial or rebuttal

evidence to that effect. In so far as other ground raised by

learned counsel for the petitioner that during the course

of enquiry, enquiry officer has not given opportunity to

cross examine the witnesses is also not tenable under law

on the sole ground that the enquiry report clearly reveals

that the enquiry officer during the course of enquiry has

given all opportunities to the petitioner including cross

examining the witnesses.

7. In so far as the other ground raised by the petitioner

that the charges leveled against the petitioner in the

disciplinary proceedings as well as in the criminal case are

one and same and the learned JFCM passed judgment in

CC.No.537 of 2007 acquitting the petitioner and the

disciplinary authority without taking into consideration of

the same imposed major punishment is concerned, after

going through the judgment passed in CC.No.537 of 2007

dated 26.07.2013, it reveals that the main eye witnesses

have not supported the prosecution and they turned

hostile and due to the peculiar circumstances, the

Criminal Court has acquitted the petitioner for the said

offences. It is settled proposition of law that, mere

acquittal in a criminal case has no relevance or bearing on

disciplinary proceedings. The standard of proof in both

the cases is different and the proceedings operate in

different fields and different objectives. In the disciplinary

proceedings the respondents proved the charges leveled

against the petitioner. There is no procedural irregularity

or any violation of the principles of natural justice in the

domestic enquiry conducted by the respondents.

8. The petitioner has committed grievous mistake while

discharging his services and the domestic enquiry

conducted by respondent is valid and the disciplinary

authority after considering the explanation submitted by

the petitioner rightly imposed the punishment and same

was confirmed by the appellate authority and revisional

authority 26.12.2013 and 09.05.2014 respectively. This

Court do not find any illegality or irregularity in the

impugned order dated 18.09.2013 passed by respondent

No.1 to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article

226 of Constitution of India.

9. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No

costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any,

shall stand closed.

_____________________________ JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

September, 2023 PSW