Telangana High Court

Lingam Pichaiah vs C And M.D., Ts Spdcl And 4 Ors. on 28 May, 2025

Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka

Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

             WRIT PETITION No. 39909 OF 2016

O R D E R:

The case of petitioner is that while working as

Electrical Helper in respondent - Southern Power Distribution

Company of T.S. Ltd., he was suspended on the alleged

involvement in Crime No. 157 of 1996 registered for the offences

under Sections 448, 354 and 506 IPC. of Suryapet Town Police

Station which is violation of Rule 10(2)(a) of APSEB Employees'

(Discipline and Appeal) Regulations. Subsequently, SC.No. 594

of 1996 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge's Court at

Suryapet ended in acquittal. However, based on the Enquiry

Report which held the charge proved, punishment of reversion

to lower cadre for a period of two years was imposed. It is also

held that the period of reversion should operate for further

increments vide proceedings dated 03.12.1997 of the 3rd

respondent. Petitioner is stated to have preferred Appeal against

the said order, however, the 2nd respondent Chief Engineer

rejected the same vide Memo dated 10.07.1998. He therefore,

made several representations to the authorities to regularize his

service in the cadre of JLM for a period of two years, but in vain.

The said action prompted petitioner to file Writ Petition No.

13852 of 2010 which was disposed of directing the competent

authority to pass appropriate orders on the representation

regarding treatment of suspension period within three months

from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order as it was

represented that he was on the verge of retirement. However

the said representation was rejected vide Memo dated

19.12.2009. It is stated further that pending Writ Petition No.

13852 of 2010, he was given promotion to the next higher post.

Challenging the order dated19.12.2009, petitioner is stated to

have filed Writ Petition No. 4944 of 2013, during the pendency

of which he retired from service on attaining the age of

superannuation, therefore, the said Writ Petition was withdrawn

at the insistence of respondents. While processing pension

papers and while fixing pension, petitioner's suspension period

from 27.09.1996 to 10.12.1997 was treated as non-qualifying

service. He again made representation dated 23.12.2005, based

on which, the 2nd respondent vide memo dated 01.12.2016

directed the 3rd respondent to submit a detailed report, but in

vain. In these circumstances, petitioner now seeks to challenge

the punishment order dated 03.12.1997, proceedings dated

21.01.2013 rejecting petitioner's claim for regularization of

suspension period and the action of respondents in not taking

further action on the Memo dated 01.02.2016 of the 3rd

respondent directing the 5th respondent to submit a detailed

report.

2. The 3rd respondent filed counter stating that

petitioner filed Writ Petition 13852 of 2010 after 12 years of the

appellate order dated 10.07.1998; pursuant to the interim order

passed therein vide order dated 02.07.2010, petitioner's case

was examined and considered and promoted from JLM to ALM,

Lineman and finally as Line Inspector. In the said Writ Petition,

by order dated 21.11.2012 the competent authority i.e.

Superintending Engineer was directed to pass appropriate

orders on the representation of petitioner regarding treatment of

suspension period within three months from the date of receipt

of a copy of the said order by the competent authority as it was

represented that petitioner was on the verge of retirement.

Accordingly, the representation was examined. It is stated, in

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bibhavanekar

v. State of Maharashtra (1997(3) SCALE 180), it was held

that acquittal in a criminal case followed by reinstatement

would not entitled for grant of consequential benefits to a

suspended employee, as a matter of course. As per the

observations, though petitioner was acquitted in criminal case,

but punishment was awarded by the appropriate authority

based on the departmental enquiry report and the said final

order of punishment was also confirmed by the appellate

authority, as such, his claim was rejected.

It is the case of respondent that under Regulation

11 of the Regulations, the Divisional Engineer placed petitioner

under suspension vide memo dated 27.09.1996; under

Regulation 10(2)(a), the Enquiry Officer was appointed to

enquire into the misconduct indecent behavior in social life

against petitioner; the Enquiry Officer issued charge sheet dated

22.11.12996, but petitioner did not submit reply and also not

attended the oral enquiry on 22.01.1997, 07.02.1997 and he

did not submit explanation after he was medically fit by

23.01.1997; on 24.02.1997 through all prosecution witnesses

attended, petitioner did not attend the same and he produced

medical certificate on 03.03.1997 for his absence on 24.02.1997

after eight days stating that he was suffering from PUC and

required treatment from 20.02.1997 to 26.02.1997. Finally, he

attended the enquiry on 29.03.1997 stating that he had given

reply to charge sheet, when asked to produce office copy, he

could not. Again he stated that he would submit reply to charge

sheet within one week, thereby EO concluded that there was no

valid explanation on 04.04.1997, he produced reply stating

that he was falsely implicated in the police station due to

instigation of neighbours and he failed to produce evidence

either documentary or oral and denied charge sheet without

submitting any valid grounds. Based on the above facts, the

Enquiry Officer concluded that incident happened on

22.08.1996 i.e. committed indecent and unhealthy act in his

social life which led to criminal case; further he failed to

maintain disciplined private life and failed to uphold absolute

integrity expected from him, thus he spoiled the image of APSEB

among the public and therefore, the charge was proved.

It is stated that petitioner filed Writ Petitions No.

13852 of 2010 and 4944 of 2013. Writ Petition No. 4944 of 2013

was withdrawn before his retirement to settle his benefits and

thereafter filed this Writ Petition on the same grounds, hence

the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri K. Raji Reddy

draws attention of this Court to

Regulation 57 of the Regulations to contend that pursuant to

the said Regulation, this Court by order dated 21.11.2012 in

Writ Petition No. 13852 of 2010 directed the 2nd respondent to

pass appropriate orders on his representation, but the same

was rejected. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.

((1999 (3) SCC 679), wherein it was held that if criminal case

and departmental proceedings are based on identical set of facts

and the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer indicate that

charges are not proved and delinquent was honorably acquitted,

and was acquitted by a judicial pronouncement, it would be

unjust to allow the findings recorded at the departmental

proceedings to stand. He also relied on G.M. Tank v. State of

Gujarat 2006(5) SCC 446. Further, learned counsel relied on

the order of this Court in Writ Petition No. 7020 of 2023 dated

06.12.2024 where the leaned Single Judge taking into

consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Ramlal v. State of Rajasthan 1 and APSRTC v. T. Venkatapathy2

found favour with the case of petitioner and reinstated him into

service, but without back-wages.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent

TRANSCO Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy submits that the impugned

orders do not require any interference and for the reasons

stated in the counter, the Writ Petition be dismissed.

5. It is well-established law that acquittal in criminal

proceedings does not automatically result in discharge in

corresponding disciplinary proceedings. The nature of

proceedings being wholly separate and distinct, acquittal in

criminal proceedings does not entitle the delinquent employee

for any benefit in the latter or automatic discharge in

departmental proceedings. It is to be noted that criminal

2024 SCC Online SC 2594

1999(4) ALD 39(DB)

prosecution aims to address offenses against society or

breaches of public duty, whereas departmental inquiries serve

the purpose of maintaining discipline and efficiency within

public service. In view of the same, acquittal of petitioner in

criminal case cannot be said to be a ground to give a clean chit

in departmental proceedings. Reason is: there are three types of

acquittals; 1 acquittal similiciter; 2. acquittal by extending

benefit of doubt due to failure on the prosecution side to prove

the guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and 3) honorable acquittal.

There is a distinction between acquittal and honourable

acquittal. The distinction has been explained by the Division

Bench of Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1287 of 2008,

dated 02.09.2009. Further, the Hon'ble Suprme Court in

Deputy Inspector of Police v. S. Samuthiram (2013 (1) SCC

598) had the opportunity to discuss in brief about the honorable

acquittal which held as under:

" The meaning of expression honorable acquittal came up for consideration before this Court in Management of Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi v. Bhopal Singh Panchal (`1994) 1 SCC 541. It is difficult to define precisely what is meant by the expression 'honourably acquitted'. When the accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to

prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused is honorably acquitted.'

6. Here, in this case, from a perusal of the judgment in

Sessions Case, it is evident that material witnesses have turned

hostile and prosecution did not examine other witnesses and

the witnesses did not support their earlier version, therefore, the

prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond

reasonable doubt. Hence, it is not an honorable acquittal. In

view of the same, the judgments relied on by learned counsel for

petitioner are not applicable to this case. The Writ Petition is

therefore, liable to be dismissed.

7. Furthermore, petitioner has not cooperated with the

departmental proceedings and as rightly pointed out by the

respondents, he approached this Court for the first time after 12