Telangana High Court
The Central Industrial Security Force vs G.G. Namdev Rao on 16 April, 2024
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT APPEAL No.247 of 2024
JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)
Aggrieved by the order dated 24.07.2023 passed in
W.P.No.28374 of 2018 by the learned Single Judge, the present
writ appeal has been filed.
2. Heard Sri K.Arvind Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for
Central Government appearing for the appellants and
Sri K.Thomas George, learned counsel appearing for the sole
respondent.
3. It is the case of the appellants that the respondent was
working as Constable in CSIF unit RSTPS, Ramagundam. On
the intervening night of 17/18.06.2016, the respondent has
trespassed into his colleague's house and molested his
colleague's wife. The disciplinary authority has construed the
same as misconduct and initiated disciplinary proceedings
against the respondent. After conducting a detailed enquiry and
for the proven misconduct, the disciplinary authority has
imposed the punishment of removal from service vide
proceedings dated 17.11.2016. Thereafter, the respondent has
unsuccessfully preferred appeal and revision. Later, challenging
the removal order, the respondent has approached this Court
by filing W.P.No.28374 of 2018. Without appreciating any of the
contentions raised by the appellants, the learned Single Judge
vide order dated 24.07.2023 disposed of the writ petition by
directing the appellants to refer the case of the respondent to
the police having jurisdiction for further course of action, till
such time, learned Single Judge suspended the proceedings
dated 17.11.2016 of the disciplinary authority as confirmed by
the appellate and revisional authorities and directed the
appellants to reinstate the respondent into service without
setting aside the removal order. Hence, the present Writ Appeal.
4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants
had contended that while disposing of the main writ petition,
the learned Single Judge ought not to have suspended the
removal order, at best, he should have adjudicated the case as
to whether the disciplinary authority was justified in imposing
the punishment of removal. Learned Single Judge ought not to
have granted interim relief by suspending the removal order as
confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities and
disposed of the writ petition by directing the appellants to lodge
a police complaint against the respondent. Pending finalization
of the police investigation, the learned Single Judge directed the
appellants to reinstate the respondent into service by
suspending the removal order, which is unheard of
adjudication. When the writ petition itself is disposed of, the
question of suspending the removal order does not arise.
Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ appeal by
setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent had
contended that the learned Single Judge has rightly disposed of
the writ petition by directing the appellants to lodge a police
complaint against the respondent, to prove the guilty of the
responent. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed
reliance on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Badal
Pal Vs. Union of India and Ors 1, wherein the Calcutta High
Court has dealt with the issue without there being a police
complaint, the disciplinary authority could not have imposed
the punishment of removal. Learned Single Judge was justified
in disposing of the writ petition by directing the appellants to
lodge a complaint against the respondent, if he has really
committed the said offence and pending police investigation,
learned Single Judge has rightly suspended the removal order
so as to enable the appellants to reinstate the respondent into
service. There are no merits in the writ appeal and the same is
liable to be dismissed.
6. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made
by the learned counsel on either side, is of the view that the
learned Single Judge could have adjudicated the case as to
whether the disciplinary authority was justified in passing the
removal order which was confirmed by the appellate authority,
for the proven misconduct. Learned Single Judge ought not to
have suspended the removal order and directed the appellants
to reinstate the respondent into service pending investigation by
the police. Therefore, the order passed the learned Single Judge
is liable to be set aside.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is Allowed by setting aside
the order dated 24.07.2023 passed in W.P.No.28374 of 2018 by
the learned Single Judge. The matter is remanded back to the
learned Single Judge so as to enable the learned Single Judge
to adjudicate the matter as to whether the disciplinary
2003 SCC online Cal 89
authority was justified in passing the removal order for the
proven misconduct. Since the writ petition pertains to 2018,
learned Single Judge is requested to dispose of the writ petition
as expeditiously as possible. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
_______________________________________
JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
____________________________________________
JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
Date:16.03.2024
tssb/rkk
