Telangana High Court
V. Raghavulu vs The Government Of Telangana on 2 September, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN
WRIT APPEAL No.611 of 2025
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri R.Anurag, learned counsel for the appellant and
Sri B.Krishna, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing
for the respondents and perused the record.
2. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated
13.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
No.17170 of 2019 whereby the writ petition filed by the
appellant/writ petitioner challenging the disciplinary action and
punishment imposed upon him was dismissed.
3. The said W.P.No.17170 of 2019 was filed seeking a writ of
Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in imposing
the penalty of Reduction in Time Scale of Pay (R.T.S.P) for two
stages for a period of two years with effect on future increment
and pension dated 25.05.2018 along with order dated
23.08.2016 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of
natural justice and for a further direction to treat the period of
suspension from 22.03.2010 to 09.07.2010 as duty for all
purposes and to restore the pay including all arrears to which
the petitioner is entitled; and to promote the petitioner to the
rank of Inspector on par with his juniors w.e.f. 01.12.2017 and
to accordingly recalculate his pensions and all other
emoluments.
I. Brief facts of the case
4. On 12.11.2007, the appellant/writ petitioner while
working as a Sub-Inspector of Police was issued a charge memo
accusing him of tampering with the arrival stamp on the
passport of a passenger, one Mr. D. Venkateshwarlu, at the
immigration counter in Rajiv Gandhi International Airport,
Hyderabad. The allegation was that he affixed a back dated
stamp of 12.01.2005 instead of 12.11.2007 for exchange of
300 USD (approximately Rs.10,000/-).
5. After a departmental enquiry, the disciplinary authority,
by proceedings dated 23.08.2016 imposed the punishment of
Reduction in Time Scale of Pay (R.T.S.P.) by two stages for two
years with effect on future increment and pension and treated
the period of suspension i.e. 22.03.2010 to 09.07.2010 as 'Not
on duty'.
6. The appellant preferred a departmental appeal aggrieved
by the order of the disciplinary authority and the appellate
authority dismissed the appeal by order dated 25.05.2018.
7. The appellant was simultaneously prosecuted in
C.C.No.380 of 2014 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil
Judge-cum-XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad
at Rajendranagar for the offences under Sections 420, 468 and
471 of IPC on the self-same allegations. The criminal Court
acquitted the appellant on 02.04.2019 holding that the
prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable
doubt. The appellant filed revision petition before the
respondents to consider his case and drop the punishment
imposed in the departmental proceedings in the light of
acquittal in C.C.No.380 of 2014. However, the same was
rejected vide proceedings dated 06.08.2019. The appellant
aggrieved by the rejection of his revision petition by the
respondent authorities filed W.P.No.17170 of 2019 which was
dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dated
13.03.2025 inter alia on the ground that the disciplinary
proceedings against the appellant were in accordance with the
rules and regulations and that the standard of proof that was
required in the departmental proceedings was "preponderance
of probabilities" and not "beyond reasonable doubt". The
learned Single Judge upheld the findings of the departmental
proceedings. Hence, this writ appeal.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that
i) the departmental proceedings were conducted in violation of
principles of natural justice; ii) no material evidence was
produced by the department to substantiate the charges;
iii) that the passenger was not examined as a witness; iv) that
no CCTV footage or forensic evidence was presented; and v) that
the punishment was based on mere suspicion and in the
absence of any evidence.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contended
that i) the departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance
with the Rules; ii) that the standard of proof in the departmental
proceedings "preponderance of probabilities" and not "beyond
reasonable doubt"; iii) that the acquittal in the criminal case
does not automatically exonerate the appellant in the
departmental proceedings and that the punishment awarded
was in consonance with the gravity of the charge.
10. In the present case, the departmental enquiry was
conducted on the self-same allegations and charges which were
the subject matter of the Criminal Case vide C.C.No.380 of 2014
and the witnesses for the department were substantially the
same. It is relevant to note that Article-I of the Statement of
articles of charge framed against the appellant/petitioner reads
as under:
Article-1:- Sri V. Raghavulu, SI of Police of Tr. PS
Trimulgherry while working at Immigration Airport,
Cyberabad as HC on 12-11-2007 fraudulently affixed
previous dated arrival stamp in the passport of one
passenger Sri D. Venkateshwarlu at the Immigration
counter. The said passenger got his visa in October 2004
and went to USA in the month of November, 2004 vide
passport No E6136088. The passenger was supposed to
stay for 6 months in each visit at USA. But, he over
stayed at USA.
On 12-11-2007, Sri V. Raghavulu, SI of Police affixed
previous date arrival stamp as 12-01-2005 in his
passport to avoid any problem in future, though the
passenger had actually arrived at Hyderabad on
12-11-2007. This was done for a monetary consideration
of US $ 300 from the passenger. This fact came to the
notice during the month of July 2009 when the said
passenger's entry at George Bush International Airport
was refused by US customs Huston Texas and he was
deported to India. In this connection, a case was booked
in Cr.No.359/09 U/s. 420, 468, 471, IPC at Rajiv Gandhi
International Airport, Shamshabad PS. On registration of
case, Sri V. Raghavulu obtained anticipatory bail vide
Cr.MP.No. 1468 of 2009 dated 1-8-09 and surrendered
before Hon'ble VIII MM Court Rajendranagar, Cyberabad.
On 17-8-09, he was released on bail. Later, he was
placed under suspension vide DO No.1155, dated
20-03-2009 and released from suspension vide DO No.
2610 of even No dated: 09-07-2010. The present stage of
the criminal case against him is under Investigation.
Sri V. Raghavulu, SI, by his above mentioned acts as
exhibited lack of integrity, and misused his official
position and acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a
Government servant and contravened Rule 3 of APCS
(Conduct) Rules. 1964.
11. Further, the department in order to prove the alleged
offence in the Criminal Case examined P.Ws.1 to 4 who are as
follows:
i) P.W.1: B.Ravinder Reddy
ii) P.W.2: Raghavender Reddy
iii) P.W.3: N.Jayaram
iv) P.W.4: J.Bhaskar
12. In the Departmental Proceedings, the same witnesses
P.Ws.1 and P.W.3 were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.1
respectively, and P.W.2 in the Criminal Case who is stated to be
the panch witness and who has resiled from his previously
recorded statement was not examined in the departmental
enquiry. The above makes it clear that the charges in the
departmental enquiry and the Criminal Case as well as the
witnesses/evidence were similar. The criminal Court has
categorically recorded a finding that the department has failed
to bring home the guilt of the appellant/petitioner.
13. Furthermore, the request of the appellant for examination
of the passenger and production of CCTV footage was not
acceded by the enquiry officer. The non-examination of material
witness and the non-production of crucial witness vitiated the
enquiry. The departmental proceedings relied solely on the oral
testimony of the officials of the department in the absence of
any documentary, electronic or forensic evidence. There was no
cash recovered from the appellant nor the stamp stated to be
tampered was forensically examined. The appellant was
acquitted by the criminal Court on the same set of facts which
constituted the charge in the departmental proceedings
observing that no cogent evidence was adduced by the
department. The department failed to consider the acquittal of
the appellant and to act upon the representation of the
appellant to drop the punishment awarded in the departmental
proceedings.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.M.Tank v.
State of Gujarat and others 1 held that when a delinquent was
acquitted by the criminal Court on the same set of facts, the
departmental punishment cannot be sustained.
(2006) 5 SCC 446
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal v.
State of Rajasthan 2 has held that:
28. Expressions like "benefit of doubt" and "honourably
acquitted", used in judgments are not to be understood as
magic incantations. A court of law will not be carried away
by the mere use of such terminology. In the present case,
the Appellate Judge has recorded that Ext. P-3, the original
marksheet carries the date of birth as 21-4-1972 and the
same has also been proved by the witnesses examined on
behalf of the prosecution. The conclusion that the acquittal
in the criminal proceeding was after full consideration of
the prosecution evidence and that the prosecution
miserably failed to prove the charge can only be arrived at
after a reading of the judgment in its entirety. The Court in
judicial review is obliged to examine the substance of the
judgment and not go by the form of expression used.
29. We are satisfied that the findings of the Appellate
Judge in the criminal case clearly indicate that the charge
against the appellant was not just, "not proved" -- in fact
the charge even stood "disproved" by the very prosecution
evidence. As held by this Court, a fact is said to be
"disproved" when, after considering the matters before it,
the court either believes that it does not exist or considers
its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought,
under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon
the supposition that it does not exist. A fact is said to be
"not proved" when it is neither "proved" nor "disproved".
30. We are additionally satisfied that in the teeth of the
finding of the Appellate Judge, the disciplinary
proceedings and the orders passed thereon cannot be
allowed to stand. The charges were not just similar but
identical and the evidence, witnesses and circumstances
were all the same. This is a case where in exercise of our
discretion, we quash the orders of the disciplinary
(2024) 1 SCC 175
authority and the appellate authority as allowing them to
stand will be unjust, unfair and oppressive. This case is
very similar to the situation that arose in G.M. Tank [G.M.
Tank v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 5 SCC 446 : 2006 SCC
(L&S) 1121]
16. A perusal of the findings recorded by the criminal Court
and the order passed by the respondent department, in the light
of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited
above command that punishment inflicted on the appellant
pursuant to the departmental proceedings cannot be sustained
in the light of the findings of the criminal Court rendered on
identical set of facts and circumstance.
17. In the above situation, when the charges in the
departmental enquiry and the charges framed against
appellant/petitioner in the criminal trial are similar, this Court
is of the considered opinion that the imposition of penalty of
R.T.S.P for two stages for a period of two years with effect on
future increment and pension, dated 23.08.2016 (final order) as
confirmed in the appellate order dated 25.05.2018 was totally
uncalled for, particularly in view of the fact that the criminal
trial has negated the charges levelled against the
appellant/petitioner.
18. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Single
Judge fell in error in upholding the departmental proceedings
overlooking and ignoring the findings of the criminal Court on
the self-same allegations and the decisions rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, in similar situation.
19. For all the aforesaid reasons, the order of the learned
Single Judge cannot be sustained.
20. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed setting aside the
order dated 13.03.2025 in W.P.No.17170 of 2019. The
respondents are directed to grant all the consequential benefits
including the monetary benefits of the appellant. There shall be
no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending,
shall stand closed.
______________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
_____________________
G.M. MOHIUDDIN, J
Date: 02.09.2025
ssp
