D Bhagya Raj vs The Commissioner Of Police
2024 Latest Caselaw 2048 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 2048 Tel
Judgement Date : 6 June, 2024

Telangana High Court

D Bhagya Raj vs The Commissioner Of Police on 6 June, 2024

  THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI

            WRIT PETITION (TR) NO.6129 OF 2017

ORDER:

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is challenging the

Proceedings D.O.No.2999, No.L&O/B2/546/2010, dated

30.05.2014, issued by the respondent No.1 and the

appellate orders dated 27.09.2014 and the revision orders

dated 10.03.2016 and to declare them as illegal, arbitrary

and unconstitutional and consequently to set aside the

same and hold that the petitioner is entitled for

reinstatement into duty with all consequential benefits and

to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present

writ petition are that the petitioner was working as a Police

Constable in P.S.Jubilee Hills after being appointed on

19.01.2008. It is submitted that on 17.03.2010, a charge

memo was issued to the petitioner for unauthorizedly being

absent to duty from 20.09.2010 and later it had come to be

known that he was arrested by the Prohibition and Excise

Officials of Enforcement on 20.09.2010 at about 17.45

TMD,J

hours for his involvement in drug racket case vide Crime

No.119/2010, under Section 8(c) of NDPS Act of Kachiguda

Excise Circle and subsequently, he was remanded to

judicial custody on 21.09.2010. Therefore, the petitioner

was required to submit his statement of defence and the

petitioner submitted his statement of defence and

thereafter an Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into

the charges framed against the petitioner. The Enquiry

Officer, after recording the evidence, come to the

conclusion that the charges against the petitioner are

proved. The disciplinary authority had passed the

punishment order of dismissal from service and treated the

suspension period as 'not on duty'. In the meantime, the

petitioner was acquitted from the criminal case honourably

and thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the

appellate authority, but the same was dismissed and the

revision authority also has dismissed the revision petition

filed by the petitioner. Challenging the same, the present

writ petition has been filed.

TMD,J

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the petitioner was not wilfully absent from duties, but

was prevented by reasonable cause, i.e., he was

apprehended by the police and was in judicial custody and

therefore, the basis of Charge No.1 is unsustainable. As

regards the charge of possessing Narcotic Drugs, the

learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

Criminal Court has acquitted the petitioner from the

charges and therefore, the same should have been

considered for dropping the charges against the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed

reliance upon the following decisions in support of his

contentions:

(1) Copy of the Judgment in Session Case

No.343/2011, dated 08.02.2013;

(2) G.M.Tank Vs. State of Gujarat and Another 1.

5. Learned Government Pleader for Home, on the

other hand, submitted that the petitioner was found to be

1 2006 (4) SCJ 1

TMD,J

in possession of Narcotic Drugs and was also absent to

duty during the relevant hours and therefore, the charges

have been held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer and the

Disciplinary Authority has thought it fit to impose the

punishment of dismissal from service. It is submitted that

this Court may not interfere with the quantum of

punishment. It is submitted that the petitioner has not

challenged the procedure of conducting enquiry and

therefore, he cannot now challenge the quantum of

punishment imposed by the authorities. He has also placed

reliance upon the following judgments:

(1) Deputy Inspector General of Police and

Another Vs. S.Samuthiram 2;

(2) State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Heem

Singh 3.

6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the

material on record, this Court finds that the issue of

unauthorized absence is not maintainable because the

2 (2013) 1 SCC 598 3 (2021) 12 SCC 569

TMD,J

petitioner was arrested on the very same day and in view of

the said incident, he could not appear before the

authorities for duty. With regard to the second charge, this

Court finds that it is for the Criminal Court to decide as to

whether any offence has been committed by the petitioner.

It is not the case where during the course of discharge of

official duty, the petitioner had committed a criminal case.

Therefore, the decision of the Criminal Court assumes

importance. This Court in W.P.No.12953 of 2021, dated

29.04.2024 has also held as under:

9. As regards the second charge, i.e., involvement of a criminal case, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the charges were under Section 302 of IPC and not relating to the official functions of the petitioner. It is only the Criminal Court which, after due trial, can pronounce whether the petitioner was guilty of the offence alleged to have been committed by him. In case, where the act of misconduct would amount to both departmental as well as the criminal proceedings, it would be of much importance that both the proceedings be concluded independently, but in the case before this Court, the criminal case has nothing to do with the official functions of the petitioner and therefore, the decision of the Criminal Court would have to weigh on the decision taken by the disciplinary authority of dismissal from service of the petitioner. This Court finds that the dismissal from service was in the year 2016, whereas the petitioner

TMD,J

was acquitted from charges in the year 2018, and it was therefore, brought to the notice of this Court in the writ petition and this Court had categorically given a direction to the appellate authority to take the same into consideration. However, the order of the appellate authority is wanting in detail. It is passed without any application of mind by the appellate authority. In fact, there was no reference even to the order of the Hon'ble High Court in the Writ Petition while passing the appellate order.

Therefore, it appears that the appellate authority neither considered the judgment of this Court nor even looked into the acquittal order before confirming the order of dismissal. The judgments filed in support of the contentions raised by the petitioner are to the effect that where there is no evidence and the Criminal Court has acquitted the accused from the charges, the departmental authorities would have also to look into the same before passing any orders. The judgment relied upon by the learned government pleader is distinguishable on facts.

10. In view thereof, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with consequential benefits only from the date of acquittal i.e., in the year 2018.

7. Respectively following the same, this Court is of

the opinion that the respondents ought to have considered

the judgment in the Criminal Case in acquitting the

petitioner from criminal charges for concluding the

disciplinary proceedings. The punishment order dated

30.05.2014 and the appellate order dated 27.09.2014 and

TMD,J

the revision orders dated 10.03.2016 are accordingly set

aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the

petitioner into service but without back wages and he shall

be eligible for all consequential benefits only from the date

of acquittal from the criminal case.