Telangana High Court
Madhusudhan G vs The State Of Telangana And 5 Others on 21 April, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 17417 OF 2021
O R D E R:
Heard Sri B. Subash, learned counsel for petitioner
as well as learned Government Pleader for Services-1 for the 1st
respondent.
2. A perusal of the material on record discloses that
petitioner was appointed as Armed Reserve Police Constable on
22-06-1995. He was alleged to have involved for exhibiting gross
misdemeanor, negligence towards duty, indiscipline attitude
and embezzled the amount to tune of Rs.27,640/- pertains to
allowances of certain Home Guards of Medak District, besides
abusing Sri M. Srinivas, HG 28 in unparliamentarily language
and threatened with dire consequences to see his end, which is
highly objectionable and thereby violated Rule 3, 3-B of APCS
(conduct) Rules 1964). Based on the letter addressed by the
then MLA to the DGP, AP, Hyderabad stating that he learnt that
salaries of Home guards were deducted showing absents, leaves
and other deductions and illegally diverted the amount to some
other Account No. 52127234871, SBH, Sangareddy, the DSP
(AR) Sangareddy enquired and submitted report dated
15-04-2013. During the enquiry, DSP (AR) personally visited
SBH, Sangareddy Branch and found that the above account is
existing in petitioner's name; on perusal of the statement of
account, it was further found that Home Guards salary amount
for the following days as mentioned against each date was
credited into the above account number of ARPC. 1810 viz.
1) date 04-05-2012 for Rs.780/-, 2) date 04-05-2012 for
Rs.1,380/-, 3) date 07-05-2012 for Rs.5,780/-, 4) date17-07-
2012 for Rs.580/-, 5) date 09-08-2012 for Rs.6,180/-, 6) date
03-10-2012 for Rs.6,180/- and 7) date 09-11-2012 for
Rs.6.180/-, totaling Rs. 27,060/-. On further enquiry, it came
to light that the said ARPC was working in Home Guards wing,
AR Sangareddy on attachment basis and attending the Home
guards related correspondence and he deliberately
diverted/credited the HGs salary amount into his account.
According to respondents, if it is by mistake, he should have
brought the same to the notice of officers but he did not do such
thing and embezzled the above amount which is highly
objectionable. Based on the report of DSP, AR Sangareddy,
petitioner was placed under suspension on 16-04-2013 and
Additional SP (AR), Sangareddy was instructed to conduct
preliminary enquiry into the matter. Subsequently, suspension
was revoked on 06-07-2013, as such, he reported for duty at
PTC Amberpet, Hyderabad on 10-07-2013.
3. The Additional SP (AR) Sangareddy conducted
preliminary enquiry, recorded the statements of 11 connected
witnesses and submitted reports along with material documents
on 08-08-2013; as per the enquiry reports of Additional SP (AR),
Sangareddy coupled with statements of connected witnesses
and material documents, framed Article of charge as
contemplated under Rule 20 of APCS (CC &A) Rules 1991
against petitioner on 13-12-2013; petitioner submitted
explanation on 06-02-2014; the CI, Narsapur was appointed as
Inquiry Authority (EO) to conduct OE against him on the above
allegations vide proceedings dated 28-02-2014 and in terms of
Rule 20 (5) of APCS CCA Rules, the SI Narsapur was appointed
as Presenting Officer on 19-03-2014. Further the representation
of petitioner was forwarded to Enquiry Officer to permit him
utilize the services of one Sri B. Subhash, PC 2239 of RGI
Airport PS, Cyberabad as defence assistant for taking further
action in terms of Rule 20 (5) of APCS CCA Rules 1991 vide
Memo dated 15-04-2014, during the course of O.E., the Enquiry
Officer examined and recorded the statements of 12 witnesses
and 22 connected documents were marked as exhibits on behalf
of prosecution in the presence of charged officer, presenting
officer and defence assistant as well. After completion of O.E,
Minutes along with records were submitted on 12-04-2016
holding the charges leveled against petitioner as 'Not Proved'.
4. However, Dissent Note dated 28-11-2016 was
issued calling his written statement of defense for which
petitioner submitted explanation on 27-11-2017. The
Disciplinary Authority ie. SP, Sangareddy disagreed with the
findings of Enquiry Officer and held the charge as proved and
awarded him punishment of "POSTPONEMENT OF INCREMENT
FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR WITH EFFECT ON FUTURE
INCREMENTS AND PENSION" by treating his suspension period
w.e.f.18-04-2013 to 09-07-2013 as "NOT ON DUTY" on
01-05-2018. The Appeal preferred to the 4th respondent was
rejected on 08-08-2018. Revision Petition filed before the 3rd
respondent was considered and the punishment was modified to
that of "RTSP for (2) Years without effect on future Increments
and pension" and suspension period is treated as not on duty
vide order dated 06-02-2019.
5. Subsequently, petitioner submitted representations
to the 1st respondent dated 21-05-2019, to set-aside the
modified punishment of "RTSP for 2 years without effect on
future Increments and pension" and suspension period treated
as not on duty but the same was rejected on 17-10-2019 which
was communicated to petitioner vide office Memo dated 06-12-
2019. Petitioner again submitted representation to the 1st
respondent on 01-04-2020, with the same request. The
contention of learned Government Pleader is that when once the
representation is rejected, again entertaining the same by the 1st
respondent does not arise. This Court is in full agreement with
the said contention.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the 5th
respondent in his entire Dissent Note nowhere mentioned the
process and statutory procedure of preparing bills of duty
allowance of Home Guards by District Police Office staff rather
than him and that M. Srinivas, HG 28 in his cross-examination
before the Enquiry Officer admitted that he contacted first
Sri Krishna, Clerk, DPO who process the duty allowance of
Home Guards and after seeking the file, it would be sent to
higher officials; the DSP AR, RI AR and Additional SP Admn.
would sign the bills but there is no signature of charged officer
and if any errors take place in the bills, the officers who signed
the bills are only responsible and these facts are suppressed by
the 5th respondent in dissent note. No document has been
produced by the 5th respondent with regard to processing the
duty allowance bills of home guards. The cross-examination of
P.W.10 Smt. Y.Vijaya Laxmi, Chief Manager, SBH, Sangareddy
Branch that there is possibility of depositing money in the
charged officer's account by another. It is submitted that the 4th
respondent mechanically rejected the Appeal without recording
any cogent reasons bluntly following the proceedings of the 5th
respondent and the 3rd respondent though modified the
punishment of PPI for one year with effect on future increments
and pension and treating the suspension period w.e.f. 18-04-
2013 to 09-07-2013 as not on duty, no reasons are assigned for
not setting aside the punishment. In support of his contention,
reliance is placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana 1, M/s Neeharika
Infrastructure v. The State of Maharashtra 2, M.A. Murthy
v. State of Karnataka 3 and that of the High Court of Calcutta
in Dr. Subhash Chandra Tiwari v. West Bengal Medical
Council 4.
7. A perusal of dissent note, in this backdrop, makes
it clear that during O.E, the Addl. SP(AR) supported his report
dated 08-08-2013 and 08-11-2013 and reported that he
obtained statement of account from bank, perusal of which
AIR 1988 2181
Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021
Appeal (Civil) No. 6913-6914 of 2003
W.P.No. 21498 (W) of 2019
revealed that duty allowances of certain Home Guards were
credited on the various dates in delinquent's account; charged
officer while working in Home Guard Office used to prepare
Annexure of duty allowances and credit into their respective
bank accounts; taking advantage of the same, the charged
officer deliberately diverted the amounts into his SB account
and the delinquent cannot ignore his duties by pushing on
others the allegations established against him. P.Ws.1 to 4 who
did not receive their duty allowance, during preliminary enquiry
stated that when they approached, petitioner stated that their
amounts might have credited to other accounts, but, during
preliminary enquiry, they all turned hostile, which shows that
petitioner managed all of them very well. Further, as per the
bank statements, the duty allowances of certain Home Guards
to the tune of Rs.27,640/- was deposited to delinquent personal
saving Account and it cannot be ignored. P.W.5, HG 28 who
gave compliant dated 04-01-2023 before SP Medak, stated
during preliminary enquiry that allowances of Rs.580/- was not
credited to his bank account; he contacted HC 1007 Nayeem
who replied that amount was credited to his account; then he
enquired by visiting DPO, Sangareddy and noticed that amount
was credited to A/c No. 52127238471 of petitioner and thereby
he summoned to the DSP, AR Office to receive money, but he
refused to return back and to sign receipt and the delinquent
abused him over phone in filthy language and threatened with
dire consequences to see his end. P.W.5 did not turn hostile in
OE. It clearly reveals that petitioner threatened him on refusal
of the amount and his involvement. In that regard, petitioner
was awarded with the punishment of censure vide proceedings
dated 22-2-2013 and later on the same was set aside by SP
Medak vide proceedings dated 06-12-2013. In the dissent note,
it was also mentioned that as per the bank statement, the duty
allowance of certain home guards to the tune of Rs.27,640/-
was deposited in petitioner's personal saving account and it
cannot be ignored in the interest of justice.
8. Moreover, the respondents in the counter stated
that the procedure laid down in the CCA Rules 1991 was
completely followed in the departmental action against the
charged officer and in the process of departmental enquiry, the
allegations levelled against the charged officer are clearly
established. He was given reasonable opportunity to submit his
defense and the statements of prosecution witnesses and
connected evidences are examined in detail in the enquiry,
which clearly proves the allegations levelled on him. Petitioner
has not proved the contra. It is always to be borne in mind that
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments held that
the power of judicial review is not directed against the decision
but is confined to the decision-making process. This Court does
not sit in judgment on merits of the decision. It is not open to
the High Court to re-appreciate and re-appraise the evidence led
before the Inquiry Officer as a Court of Appeal and reach its own
conclusions.
9. Though, petitioner submits that there is delay in
issuing the dissent note, in view of the discussion supra, the
said contention pales into insignificance. For all the reasons
stated, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief as claimed in
the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
10. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No
costs.
11. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any
shall stand closed.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
21st April 2025
ksld
