Telangana High Court
D. Venkat Swamy, S/O. Late D. Narayana, vs The State Of Telangana, Represented By ... on 17 June, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
1
wp_41774_2017
NBK, J
THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No.41774 of 2017
ORDER:
The case at hand, precisely, is that the petitioner, who is a Police
Constable,was issued a Charge Memo dated 21.02.2009 alleging that
while he was working at Veepanagandla Police Station and assigned the
Court duties, he handed over the seized tractors to the accused (owners
of the tractors), by colluding with the accused, without there being any
permission of the competent authority;and further he deserted the
Department by resorting to unauthorized absence for 21 days.
In relation to the same offence, a case in Crime No.67 of 2008 for
the offences under Sections 406 and 409 read with 34 of IPC was also
registered against the petitioner and two others; and after investigation
charge sheet was filed, and the same was taken on file by the Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Kollapur, as C.C.No.121 of 2009. After due
trial, the learned Magistrate, vide Judgment dated 20.09.2010, acquitted
the petitioner and others.
However, on the departmental front, the petitioner's explanation
to the Charge Memo, having been found not satisfactory, disciplinary
proceedings were initiated. The petitioner participated in the disciplinary
proceedings, and pursuant to the enquiry report submitted by the
Enquiry Officer, the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed
on the petitioner. Petitioner filed an appeal, and also revision petitions
before the departmental authorities, however, they were all rejected.
Thereafter, the petitioner approached the A.P. Administrative
Tribunal, by filing O.A.No.6352 of 2013. The learned Tribunal, after
wp_41774_2017
NBK, J
due enquiry, by Order dated 02.08.2014, set aside the punishment of
dismissal from service imposed by the 4th respondent (apart from setting
aside the consequential orders of rejection of appeal, and also revision
petitions) and remitted the matter back to the 4th respondent directing to
impose a lesser penalty, other than dismissal/compulsory retirement. The
Tribunal further directed to treat the period of absence of the petitioner
as eligible leave, apart from directing to treat the period between date of
dismissal and reinstatement as continuity of service for pension and
seniority, without monetary benefit.
As per the Tribunal's Order dated 02.08.2014, the petitioner was
reinstated, and the punishment of dismissal was modified to that of
reduction to a lower stage in time-scale of pay (RTSP) by five stages for
five years with effect on future increments and pension. Aggrieved by
the magnitude of punishment, the petitioner filed an appeal before the
2nd respondent-Deputy Inspector General of Police, and the 2nd
respondent, by Order dated 30.10.2015 modified/reduced the
punishment to that of "RTSP by two stages for two years with effect on
future increments and pension". Still felt aggrieved, the petitioner filed a
revision petition before the 3rd respondent-Inspector General of Police,
however, the revision petition was dismissed by the 3rd respondent by
Order dated 09.03.2016. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this
writ petition.
2. Heard Mr. C. Raja Sekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner; and learned Government Pleader for Home. Perused the
record.
wp_41774_2017
NBK, J
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions on the lines
of writ affidavit, and contended that rejection of revision petition by the
3rd respondent, summarily by the impugned order dated 09.03.2016, is
illegal and arbitrary. He relies on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat 1; and Capt M. Paul Anthony
vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd2.
4. Learned Government Pleader, based on the counter affidavit,
contends that the respondent authorities had implemented the order
passed by the Tribunal by reinstating the petitioner; and with regard to
reduction of punishment, the 4th respondent-Superintendent of Police
imposed a punishment of RTSP by five stages for five years with effect
on future increments and pension; however, on appeal by the petitioner,
the 2nd respondent-DIG further reduced the punishment to RTSP by two
stages for two years with effect on future increments and pension.
Learned Government Pleader contends that the punishment had already
been reduced by the 2nd respondent, and therefore the 3rd respondent,
after perusal of the case, felt it not a fit case for further reduction of
punishment, and therefore dismissed the revision petition by the
impugned order, and there is no illegality in the said action.
5. At the outset, it may be noted that it is settled law that criminal
proceedings and departmental proceedings operate on a different
footing. Further, the Tribunal had, by Order dated 02.08.2014, set aside
the dismissal punishment, and directed the respondent authorities to
reinstate the petitioner, with a further direction to impose a lesser
punishment. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the Order dated
(1999) 3 SCC 679
wp_41774_2017
NBK, J
02.08.2014 passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner was reinstated. With
regard to the punishment, the 4th respondent-Superintendent of police
imposed the punishment of RTSP with five stages for five years with
effect on future increments and pension; and the punishment was further
reduced in appeal before the 2nd respondent-DIG, to that of RTSP by two
stages for two years with effect on future increments and pension.
6. At this juncture, it may be noted that the case has been
adjudicated by the Tribunal on merits, and directed the reinstatement of
the petitioner.There is no dispute with regard to the implementation of
the orders of the Tribunal. It is to be noted that thepunishment of RTSP
with five stages for five years with effect on future increments and
pension was further reduced toRTSP with two stages for two years with
effect on future increments and pension, on humanitarian grounds;
andhence the grievance of dismissal of revision petition is therefore an
unfounded grievance, as prima facie there is compliance of the orders of
Tribunal.
7. Having considered the respective submissions and also the
judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court
does not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned Order dated
09.03.2016 passed by the 3rd respondent.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
17thJune, 2025
ksm
wp_41774_2017
NBK, J
THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No.41774 of 2017
17thJune, 2025
ksm
