Telangana High Court
Talari Narayanappa vs The State Of Telangana on 20 February, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 6160 OF 2019
O R D E R:
Heard Sri C. Damodar Reddy, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for Sri C. Ruthwik Reddy, learned counsel
for petitioner and learned Special Government Pleader for Home
(Services) on behalf of Respondents.
2. The case of petitioner is that he was selected and
appointed as Police Constable in 2nd BN at Kurnool in 1983 and
discharged his duties regularly and sincerely for more than 12
years. Subsequently, he was promoted as Head Constable and
transferred to 10th BN, APSP, Beechpally in 1995. As things
stood thus, on 02.07.2014, petitioner was posted as store NCO
and in-charge of Bell of Arms at Quarter Guard of the said
campus and since he was under severe mental agony and
disturbed state of mind due to the death of his grandson, he
took permission from Sri. NVAN Reddy, RSI, who was in duty at
that time and went to his quarter and slept and thereafter, the
duty officer Sri. V. Laxminarayana, RI called him over phone
and as per his direction, came to quarter guard and slept there
and further in the early hours at about 5:30 am in the routine
course, petitioner opened Bell of Arms for verifying the intact
position of Arms and Ammunition and closed the Bell of Arms.
On 03.07.2014, Sri. P. Samuel John, the Assistant
Commandant, 10th BN-TSSP, Beechpally gave a written report
to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Itikyala Police Station stating
that one SLR Magazine loaded with 20 rounds of 10th BNTSSP
i.e., Government property was missed by Sri. K. Naresh Kumar,
PC-802 of "C" Coy of the said unit while petitioner was
performing his duties at Battalion Quarter Guard on 02.07.2014
from 17:00 hrs and at that time, number of personnel
mentioned therein are in duty at Quarter Guard including
petitioner and requested for necessary action.
Based on the said report, police registered Crime
No. 73 of 2014 for the offence under Section 379 IPC against
unknown accused. On investigation and on the information of
officers i.e. V. Laxminarayana, RI and KVV Prasad, RI who are
inimical towards petitioner, on 30.07.2014, petitioner was
arrested and remanded to judicial custody by the Police on the
allegation that petitioner committed theft of SLR with 20 rounds
of Magazine of Mr. Naresh Kumar. Further, based on the PE
report dated 05.07.2014 submitted by Sri. Jaggu Naidu,
Assistant Commandant, the 4th respondent initiated disciplinary
action against petitioner, one Md. Nazeeruddin, HC 652,
S. Radha Krishna, PC340, Chinna Ayyanna, PC 976, G.
Krishna, PC 147 and K. Naresh Kumar, PC 802 of the said unit
and placed them under suspension from service and petitioner
was placed under suspension vide proceedings dated
05.07.2014 till conclusion of criminal and disciplinary
proceedings. It is further stated that subsequently, the 4th
respondent revoked suspension order in respect of other
persons who were initially suspended within two months
however, they did not consider his case. It is stated that police
filed charge sheet against petitioner on 30.08.2014. Further,
vide Order dated 10.10.2014, the 4th respondent extended
suspension of petitioner for a further period of six months. The
4th respondent issued Memorandum dated 15.10.2014 along
with the state of Article of charges.
Aggrieved by the suspension order, petitioner filed
O.A. No. 2860 of 2015; by order dated 24.09.2015, the Andhra
Pradesh Administrative Tribunal directed respondents to review
suspension order and pass appropriate orders on merits for
reinstatement within a period of eight weeks. Respondents
initiated oral enquiry against petitioner in pursuance of
Memorandum of Charges issued. Petitioner filed OA. No. 6366 of
2015 and by order dated 20.11.2015, the Tribunal directed
respondents not to proceed with disciplinary proceedings in
respect of charges 2 and 3 till finalization of criminal case
registered against petitioner for the alleged theft, however, they
are at liberty to proceed with disciplinary case under the 1st
Article of Charge. Thereafter, the 4th respondent conducted oral
enquiry of the 1st charge that petitioner exhibited gross
misconduct by failing to sleep at quarter guard on the night of
02.04.2014 and on opening and closing Bell of Arms of HQ coy
on own accord. The 4th respondent issued final orders dated
07.01.2016 removing petitioner from service by revoking the
suspension order.
Aggrieved by the said removal order, petitioner
preferred Appeal to the 5th respondent - Inspector General of
Police, TSSP Battalions, Hyderabad requesting to set-aside
removal order and reinstate petitioner into service. However, the
Appellate Authority mechanically rejected the Appeal on
22.03.2016. It is further stated that in C.C. No. 251 of 2014,
learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Alampur vide
judgement dated 27.10.2018 acquitted petitioner finding that
prosecution failed to produce cogent and proper evidence to
prove the ingredient of theft.
It is the case of petitioner that even after receiving
the copy of judgement, respondents failed to reconsider the
matter and review the order dated 07.01.2016 and that
respondents without waiting for the result of the said criminal
case, issued order dated 07.01.2016 removing petitioner from
service. As far as the 1st charge is concerned, there was no
misconduct and gross dereliction of duty by failing to sleep at
quarter guard on the night of 02.07.2014 warranting severe
penalty of removal of service.
3. The 4th respondent filed counter stating that
petitioner has no valid and substantial grounds to grant the
relief since he filed appeal petition to higher authorities which
was rejected vide order dated 22.03.2016 and further petitioner
filed OA. No. 6366 of 2015 and OA No. 1746 of 2016 with the
same cause which are pending disposal and further as per Rule
40 of CCA Rules, he can submit Revision Petition to the
Department Authorities and without exhausting the channel
available, he approached this Court. It was further stated in the
counter that petitioner absented to duty unauthorizedly without
intimation to anyone nor has taken any permission to leave the
duty. There was theft of 7.62 mm Magazine No. 198 SA Balls (20
No's) on 02.07.2014 midnight for which the guard personnel
including petitioner are responsible as they were on duty on
that date. Preliminary Enquiry conducted by the Assistant.
Commandant revealed that petitioner un-authorizedly absented
himself to duty and he had exhibited gross negligence and
misconduct in absenting to duty on such a very important place
at which large arms and ammunition was stored. Thus
petitioner violated APSP Manual Standing Order No. 11(IX) and
at about 5:30 AM, petitioner opened the Head Quarter Coy Bell
of Arm without any reason and without permission of the Guard
Commander and Duty Officer at his own accord within 10
minutes locked the same and went away from the place. On
physical verification by the Committee, two live rounds were
traced in HQ Coy stores which was illegally kept. Crime NO. 73
of 2014 was booked in Itikyala Police Station. It was further
stated in the Counter Affidavit that disciplinary action was
initiated against all the guard personnel on duty on 02.07.2014
for that lapse involving theft of ammunition by placing the
individuals under suspension including petitioner on
05.07.2014. Suspension on other guard personnel except
petitioner was revoked subsequently while petitioner continued
under suspension in view of his arrest and involvement in the
case. It is stated further that during the investigation by SI of
Itikyia PS, it was stated that petitioner confessed that he
committed theft of 15 SLR live rounds and one empty SLR
Magazine from the Bell of Arms to sell them outside on higher
rates for self-benefit.
4. It is stated further that Sri Krishna Prasad,
Assistant Commandant conducted departmental enquiry
following all the rules and procedures and submitted enquiry
report dated 07.08.2015 wherein it was stated that all the three
charges against petitioner were proved in the Departmental
Enquiry and agreeing with the findings of Inquiry authority,
minutes of the OE was communicated to petitioner calling for
his explanation on the minutes. However, petitioner did not
submit any explanation and approached Andhra Pradesh
Appellate Tribunal wherein vide interim Order dated
20.11.2015, respondents were directed not to proceed with
departmental proceedings against petitioner for charges 2 and 3
which pertain to committing of theft till criminal case is
finalized. However, granted liberty to proceed with the
disciplinary case under 1st Article of charge. After thoroughly
examining all the aspects, the Commandant 10th BN. TSSP
issued orders vide D.O. No. 30/2016, dated 07.01.2016
imposing punishment of Removal from service since the lapse
was very serious i.e., absence from guard duties where large
Arms and Ammunition are kept for safe custody.
It is further stated that Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate
of First Class had considered only the limited point of
committing theft of live rounds of loaded magazine and
mentioned that the investigating officer failed to conduct proper
investigation and failed to conduct the Panchanana as per the
procedure contemplated and in view of the lacunae in the case
of prosecution, the Court felt that the prosecution utterly failed
to produce cogent and proper evidence against the petitioner in
order to prove the ingredient of theft. It was further contended
that petitioner was acquitted on benefit of doubt and it is not
clear acquittal whereas in departmental enquiry in which
petitioner was given ample opportunity all the three charges
against petitioner was proved. It was further contended by the
4th respondent that since all the charges against petitioner were
proved in the departmental proceedings, punishment of
Removal from service is imposed on him duly following CCA
Rules based on the 1st Article of Charge.
5. In response to the Counter Affidavit, petitioner filed
reply contending that Order dated 07.01.2016 of the 4th
respondent and the one dated 22.03.2016 of the 5th respondent
are unreasonable on the ground of discrimination among
delinquents in initiating criminal prosecution and disciplinary
proceedings and imposing harsher punishment of removal from
service though petitioner was acquitted from criminal case. It
was contended that on 03.07.2014, the Assistant Commandant
lodged a written report for commission of theft and a case was
registered against unknown accused and took up investigation.
It was further contended that subsequent to the interim Order
dated 20.11.2015, the 4th respondent in a hurried manner and
prejudicially completed enquiry in respect of the 1st Article of
charge and passed order on 07.01.2016 removing petitioner
from service. Petitioner filed Appeal on 20.01.2016 which was
rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 22.03.2016
and since the documents and report was not furnished
immediately, petitioner could not provide explanation within
time and when subsequently tried, the 4th respondent refused to
receive the same. Petitioner contended that the 1st Article of
charge is inter-related to theft and when the allegation of theft is
not proved by the competent criminal Court, the punishment for
Article 1 of charge has no relevance at all and such harsher
punishment of Removal from service is unreasonable and
unsustainable.
6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner
argued that the 4th respondent had exceeded the scope of
enquiry and proceedings while passing the Order wherein has
taken into consideration Articles 2 and 3 of charge which relate
to the alleged theft and imposed harsh punishment on
petitioner. The same is evident from counter filed by the 4th
respondent wherein it was specifically stated that "since all the
charges against petitioner are proved in the departmental
proceedings, punishment of removal from service is imposed on
him duly following CCA Rules based on the Article of Charge 1.
The 4th respondent while passing the Order dated 07.01.2016
has not obeyed the interim Order passed by the Tribunal in OA.
No. 6366 of 2015 wherein respondents were directed not to
proceed with the departmental proceedings against petitioner
for charges 2 and 3 which pertain to theft till criminal case is
finalized. The 4th respondent should not have considered
Articles 2 and 3 of the charge while proceedings should have
limited itself to Article 1 of the charge. Admittedly, no fresh
enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer on the 1st Article
of charge. It is stated that after clear acquittal in the Criminal
Case only, petitioner filed the present Writ Petition aggrieved by
the impugned orders dated 07-01-2016 and 22-03-2016 passed
by Respondents 4 and 5 respectively.
7. Learned Senior Counsel argued that though
awarding of punishment is in the domain of employer, in
judicial review, this Court can interfere with punishment which
is shockingly disproportionate to gravity of proved misconduct.
The 1st Article of charge states that petitioner exhibited gross
misconduct and gross dereliction of duty by failing to sleep at
Quarter Guard on night of 02.07.2014 as Battalion Duty Sub
Junior Officer thereby violated APSP Manual standing order No.
11(IX), thus violated Rule (3) of APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
APSP Manual Standing Order No. 11(IX) states as follows "He
will sleep in the guard room at night." Rule 3 of APCS (Conduct)
Rules, 1964 states: (1) Every Government employee shall be
devoted to his duty and shall maintain absolute integrity,
discipline, impartiality and a sense of propriety; (2) No
Government employee shall behave in a manner which is
unbecoming of such employee or derogatory to the prestige of
Government; (3) No Government employee shall act in a manner
which will place his official position under any kind of
embarrassment. The Learned Senior Counsel argued that
petitioner sought oral permission of duty officer before going to
sleep in his quarter and the same was given by Sri. N.V.A.N.
Reddy, RSI. It was further argued that order of the 4th
respondent failed to show how Rule 3 of the APCS (Conduct)
Rules, 1964 was violated. Even assuming that no permission
was granted to petitioner to leave the quarter guard,
punishment awarded was unreasonable.
8. Learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on S.R.
Tewari vs. Union of India 1 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that question of interference and quantum of
punishment has been considered by the Supreme Court in
catena of judgments and it was held that if the punishment
awarded is disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct, it
would be arbitrary and thus would violate the mandate of
Article 14 of the Constitution. In the present case, the
Disciplinary proceedings were conducted on 1 Article of charge
alone and the punishment awarded for the same is
(2013) 6 SCC 602
disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. In Ranjit Thakur
v. Union of India 2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that,
"But the sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. It
should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so
disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and
amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias. The doctrine of
proportionality, as part of the concept of judicial review, would
ensure that even on the aspect, which is otherwise, within the
exclusive province of the Court Martial, if the decision of theCourt
even as to sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic, then the
sentence would not be immune from correction. In the present
case, the punishment is so stringently disproportionate as to call
for and justify interference. It cannot be allowed to remain
uncorrected in judicial review." In V. Ramana v. A.P.S.R.T.C. 3
&Ors, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the scope of
judicial review as to the quantum of punishment is permissible
only if it is found that it is not commensurate with the gravity of
the charges and if the Court comes to the conclusion that scope
AIR 1987 SC 2386
AIR 2005 SC 3417
of judicial review as to the quantum of punishment is
permissible only if it is found to be "shocking to the conscience
of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or
moral standards." In a normal course, if punishment imposed is
shockingly disproportionate, it would be appropriate to direct
Disciplinary Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed.
However, in order to shorten the litigation, in exceptional and
rare cases, the Court itself can impose appropriate punishment
by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. Further, in B.C.
Chaturvedi v. Union of India 4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that, "if the penalty imposed by an authority "shocks the
conscience" of the court, it would appropriately mould the relief
either directing the authority to reconsider the penalty imposed
and in exceptional and rare cases, in order to shorten the
litigation itself, impose appropriate punishment with cogent
reasons in support thereof. While examining the issue of
proportionality, Court can also consider the circumstances
under which the misconduct was committed. The Court may
further examine the effect, if the order is set aside or
AIR 1996 SC 484
substituted by some other penalty. However, it is only in very
rare cases that Court might, to shorten the litigation, think of
substituting its own view as to the quantum of punishment in
place of punishment awarded by the Competent Authority." The
Learned Senior Counsel argued that in the present case, the
quantum of punishment imposed for the 1st Article of charge is
shockingly disproportionate and since petitioner who had
already completed 30 years of service as on the date of enquiry
and who would have retired within 7 years, should not have
been penalized with the punishment of removal of service for a
minor misconduct of absenting from duty for few hours and
further since petitioner had already undergone severe mental
agony and suffered due to removal order and on considering age
of petitioner, learned Senior Counsel prayed that Writ Petition
be allowed and the orders impugned be set aside.
9. Learned Special Government Pleader Home (Service)
reiterated the contents of Counter Affidavit and placed reliance
on the Judgement in Writ Petition No. 25759 of 2018, wherein it
was held that, "the opinion formed by the Tribunal that the
respondent is entitled for the benefit of a clean chit though the
Enquiry officer found that the charges against him as proved
only on the ground that he is acquitted of the criminal charges
by the competent court which is not an honourable acquittal,
but on account of the witness turned hostile, cannot be
judicially sustained. A judicial exercise of discretion would not
be apparent if the reasoning is not in accordance with law." He
argued that since the Article of charges were proved in the
enquiry and the same are grave, the Court should dismiss the
present petition.
10. In view of the rival contentions of learned counsel,
the point that arises for consideration is whether, in the facts
and circumstances of the case, proceedings
Rc.No:A3/08/1265/2014/D.O.No:30/2016 issued by the 4th
respondent being the Disciplinary Authority imposing the
punishment of Removal from Service on petitioner and order
dated 22-03-2016 in Proc. Rc.No:R/4/App/2016-ROO
No:75/2016 issued by the 5th respondent in rejecting Appeal
confirming the order of the 4th respondent is bad, arbitrary,
illegal, misconceived, vindictive and violation of Articles 14, 16
and 21 of the Constitution of India.
11. The admitted facts are that the 4th respondent
initiated disciplinary action against petitioner and placed him
under suspension from service under proceedings dated
05.07.2014 till conclusion of criminal proceedings and
disciplinary proceedings. Vide interim order dated 20.11.2015,
the Tribunal directed respondents not to proceed with
departmental proceedings against petitioner for charges 2 and 3
which pertain to committing theft till criminal case is finalized,
however, granted liberty to proceed with disciplinary case under
1st Article of charge and the said order still subsists. It is stated
in the counter that in the departmental enquiry, all the three
charges against petitioner were proved and further stated that
since all the charges were proved in the departmental
proceedings, punishment of removal from service was imposed
duly following CCA Rules based on the Article of Charge 1.
12. A bare perusal of Order dated 07.01.2016 shows
that petitioner who was placed under suspension, failed to sleep
at Quarter Guard on the night of 02.07.2014 as a Battalion
Duty Sub Junior officer and while checking by the Battalion
Duty officer, he was found absent from the Quarter Guard and
on recalling by the Battalion Duty officer he came to the Quarter
Guard, thus he violated APSP Manual Standing order No. 11(IX)
as a Battalion Duty Sub junior officer. Further, he was absented
from the most important duties i.e. at Quarter Guard where Bell
of Arms of all Coys of this unit and Central Magazine situated.
Thus, he also violated Rule 3 of APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 by
becoming absent from most important duties. Therefore, he is
revoked from suspension and removed from Service from the
date of receipt of acknowledging this Order. The Order issued by
the 4th respondent does not provide any reasons as to why such
a harsh punishment was imposed on petitioner for absenting
from the Quarter guard for few hours on the night of
02.07.2014 and also in the situation when he was called back
and asked to sleep in the quarter guard which he obeyed as per
the instructions of his superior.
13. In view of the above stated facts and circumstances
and the legal proposition and on perusal of the counter filed by
the 4th respondent, this Court is of the considered opinion that
under these circumstances, it cannot be said that petitioner
committed misconduct warranting extreme penalty of dismissal
from service.
14. As held in the above referred judgements and as per
the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.C.
Chaturvedi's case which held that, 'if the penalty imposed by
an authority "shocks the conscience" of the court, it would
appropriately mould the relief either directing the authority to
reconsider the penalty imposed and in exceptional and rare
cases, in order to shorten the litigation itself, impose
appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.
While examining the issue of proportionality, Court can also
consider the circumstances under which misconduct was
committed. The Court may further examine the effect, if the
order is set aside or substituted by some other penalty.
However, it is only in very rare cases that the court might, to
shorten the litigation, think of substituting its own view as to
the quantum of punishment in place of punishment awarded by
the Competent Authority', this Court holds that the above
judgement squarely applies to the present facts of the case,
hence, the penalty imposed by an authority "shocks the
conscience" of the Court and it would appropriately mould the
relief. On perusal of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CC & A)
Rules, 1991, penalties for minor misconduct include Censure,
withholding of promotion, withholding of increments of pay
without cumulative effect, suspension, reduction to a lower
stage in the time scale of pay for a period not exceeding 3 years.
However, since petitioner had already undergone severe mental
agony and suffered due to removal order and on considering the
age of petitioner, this Court is of the opinion not to impose any
further penalty on the said minor misconduct of the 1st Article
of Charge.
15. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed and
Order dated 07.01.2016 issued by the 4th respondent imposing
the punishment of removal from service on petitioner and order
dated 22-03-2016 issued by the 5th respondent in rejecting the
Appeal confirming the order of the 4th respondent are set aside
and the respondents are directed to reinstate petitioner into
service as Head Constable with all consequential service
benefits including arrears of salary with effect from 05-07-2014
till his date of retirement on 31-07-2020 within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of this order and communicate
the decision to petitioner. No costs.
16 Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if
any shall stand closed.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
20th February 2025
ksld
