The petitionerwas an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) in the
Fingerprint Bureau of Warangal (Rural). He was dismissed from service by
the 3rd respondent-Additional Director General of Police, vide Proceedings
dated 31.07.2017. Petitioner challenges the proceedings dated 31.07.2017
as arbitrary, biased, and procedurally flawed enquiry process, and contrary
to facts and law. He seeks reinstatement with full consequential benefits, by
treating the suspension period as "on duty".
2. Brief facts of the case, as per the writ affidavit, are that the petitioner
joined the Indian Army in 2001 as a Craftsman in Telecommunication and
Radio wing. Following his father's demise, he requested discharge to take
care of his mother, as he was the only son. The Army accepted his request
and issued a "Combined Certificate of Discharge and Recommendation for
Civil Employment," which classified him as a "non-ex-serviceman" due to
the insufficient length of service and voluntary discharge.
2.1 On 26.02.2009, the Andhra Pradesh State Level Police
Recruitment Board issued a notification calling for applications for several
posts, including that of Stipendiary Trainee Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI)
(Code No. 33) and Stipendiary Trainee Police Constable (Communications)
(Code No. 34). The petitioner, belonging to the BC-D community and
being qualified for both posts, applied under Code No. 33. As per the
notification, the upper age limit was 25 years as of 01.07.2009, with a 5-
year relaxation for BC candidates and an additional 3-year relaxation for
wp_27814_2017
NBK, J
individuals who had served in the Army, Navy, or Air Force. The
petitioner, being 30 years and 22 days old on the cut-off date, claimed both
relaxations. However, the application form lacked a specific field to
indicate whether one had merely served in the armed forces for age
relaxation purposes; it only provided a binary option to declare whether one
was an "ex-serviceman."
2.2 The petitioner states that he may have ticked "yes" in the ex-
serviceman column to claim age relaxation--not reservation--without any
intent to mislead. Crucially, he submitted his discharge certificate that
clearly identified him as a "non-ex-serviceman". He emphasizes that he
never claimed any benefit under the ex-serviceman quota, nor did he avail
any exemptions reserved for such candidates during the physical tests. He
underwent the entire selection process, including physical tests, five written
papers (specific to both Code No. 33 and 34), a medical test, and a records
verification. Upon successful completion of nine months of training, he
was appointed as ASI on December 12, 2012, and served the department
with distinction for over five years, earning 52 official rewards and
qualifying in the AllIndia Fingerprint Experts Examination in December
2015.
2.3 The petitioner states that issues arose only when, on
07.01.2016, he was served with a Memo dated 06.11.2015, issued by the
Chairman of the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board. The
Memo alleged that he had availed age relaxation meant for ex-servicemen
despite being declared a non-ex-serviceman and demanded an explanation.
Petitioner submitted his explanation on 11.01.2016, reiterating that he had
never claimed the ex-serviceman quota and had only sought age relaxation
wp_27814_2017
NBK, J
for his previous Army service, and that his transparency in submitting a
"non-ex-serviceman" discharge certificate proves his bona fides.
2.4 However, the petitioner contends that before even receiving
theMemo dated 06.11.2015, the Chairman had already directed the 3rd
respondent-Additional DGP to initiate a disciplinary enquiry and explore
criminal proceedings through a letter dated 16.11.2015. And, in compliance
of the directions of the Chairman, the 3rd respondent addressed a letter
dated 20.11.2015 to the Additional Superintendent of Police to conduct an
enquiry, which reportedly concluded with a recommendation for dismissal.
The petitioner was suspended vide Proceedings dated 02.03.2016, and
served a Charge Memo on 19.04.2016, alleging that he engaged in
"reprehensible conduct" by producing a "non-ex-serviceman certificate"
2.6 When O.A. No. 989/2016 was dismissed, he filed
W.P.No.22038 of 2016 before this Court, wherein this Court, by order
dated 08.07.2016 directed the department to complete the enquiry within
three months, however, the respondent authorities failed to complete the
enquiry within the stipulated three months' time.The petitioner contends
that the enquiry process is flawed due to procedural irregularities. Of the
three listed witnesses, i.e., Mohd. Faheemuddin, Pendela Devaiah, and P.
Sunil Kumar, only two were examined. Faheemuddin, though critical to the
case, was dropped without explanation and substituted by Mr. Srinivas,
who was not involved in the original recruitment and merely endorsed
Faheemuddin's earlier statement; and the other two witnesses admitted the
unavailability of records and did not allege any fraud on the part of the
petitioner. Petitioner submitted his explanation to the enquiry report on
20.12.2016, but claims that the report, submitted on 07.02.2017 was biased
and influenced by the preliminary findings of a superior officer, the
Additional Superintendent of Police, which prejudiced the Enquiry Officer,
the Deputy Superintendent of Police.The petitioner received the enquiry
report under proceedings dated 16.03.2017, and submitted further
explanations on 20.03.2017 and 07.04.2017, including official documents
and legal precedents showing that age relaxation is available even to "non-
ex-servicemen" who have rendered Army service. He also cited a Gazette
Notification dated 10.10.2012, and letters from EME officials dated
04.04.2017, and 06.04.2017, supporting the position that in the absence of
suitable ex-servicemen, non-ex-servicemen could be considered.
wp_27814_2017
NBK, J
2.7 On 12.07.2017, the Director, Sainik Welfare Board, forwarded
a letter from the Ministry of Defence to the Director General of Police,
Telangana, urging fair consideration of the petitioner's case and cautioning
against punishing him for errors not of his making. These developments,
however, were allegedly ignored by the disciplinary authority, which went
on to issue the dismissal order dated 31.07.2017.The petitioner further
contends that the enquiry officer's reliance on "column 8" of the application
form--which was neither furnished to him nor introduced into evidence--
violates the principles of fair hearing. He alleges contradiction in the
department's position: on one hand, it claims that records were destroyed;
on the other, it asserts that he marked himself as an ex-serviceman.
2.8 The petitioner asserts that the charge against him lacks
evidentiary foundation and that any suggestion that he misrepresented facts
is based on assumptions, without any proof. He states that the core of his
case has always been the right to age relaxation based on Army service, not
reservation under the ex-serviceman quota. The petitioner insists that the
entire disciplinary action was conducted with prejudice, relying on
irrelevant material, and that the dismissal is arbitrary and illegal.
3. A counter affidavit is filed by the Additional Director General of
Police (arrayed as 3rd respondent in the writ petition). It is stated in the
counter that the petitioner's selection as Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) in
the Fingerprint Bureau (FPB) under the Ex-Servicemen quota was obtained
through a deliberate misrepresentation of his eligibility, and that the entire
writ is an attempt to mislead the Hon'ble Court into overturning
disciplinary proceedings that are legally sound and factually justified. It is
contended that the petitioner falsely declared himself as an Ex-Serviceman
wp_27814_2017
NBK, J
in order to secure a reservation-based selection under the notification No.
88/R&T/Gen.1/2009 dated 26.02.2009, issued by the Andhra Pradesh State
Level Police Recruitment Board. It is contended that the petitioner, who
applied with registration number 318630, enclosed with his application an
"Army Combined Certificate of Discharge and Recommendation for Civil
Employment" which explicitly classified him as a "Non Ex-Serviceman".
Despite this, the petitioner marked "Yes" in Column No. (8) of the
application form, thereby fraudulently claiming reservation under the Ex-
Servicemen category.According to the selection list dated 12.07.2011, the
petitioner, who belongs to the BC-D community, secured 195.50 marks and
ranked 334 from the Karimnagar Range. The cut-off marks for selection
under the Open Category and BC-D were 254 and 246, respectively; and
the petitioner therefore would not have been selected at all had he not
falsely claimed Ex-Servicemen status.
3.1 It is contended that the petitioner enclosed a discharge
certificate stating that he was transferred to pension establishment and
discharged "on compassionate grounds at his own request before fulfilling
the conditions of his enrolment under Item III (IV)." Under Rule 2(16) of
the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, such a
discharge does not qualify an individual for Ex-Servicemen status. This
rule mandates that only those who are discharged after completing the
terms of their engagement or under special qualifying circumstances are
eligible for the reservation; and the petitioner was therefore ineligible for
Ex-Servicemen reservation from the outset.
3.2 It is contended that, following a representation dated
14.09.2015submitted by one Sri N. Kesava Reddy of Hanamkonda, which
wp_27814_2017
NBK, J
alleged that the petitioner had been wrongly selected under Ex-Servicemen
quota, the service register of the petitioner was examined, and a
preliminary enquiry was ordered and conducted by Sk. Nawab John, Addl.
SP, CID, TS, Hyderabad, and the findings were communicated vide letter
dated 16.02.2016, which confirmed that the petitioner had indeed claimed
the Ex-Servicemen status despite submitting a certificate explicitly stating
he was not an Ex-Serviceman.Subsequently, the petitioner was placed
under suspension effective 08.03.2016. A Memorandum of Charges for
major penalty proceedings under Rule 20 of the APCS (CC&A) Rules,
1991 (as adapted by Telangana) was issued. During the enquiry, key
witnesses were examined. Sri Mohd. Faheemuddin, Manager at the DIG's
Office, Karimnagar Range, confirmed that the petitioner had applied under
the Ex-Servicemen quota and enclosed a certificate indicating "Non Ex-
Serviceman" status. This was further corroborated by Sri P. Devaiah,
Junior Assistant, and Sri Sunil Kumar, Senior Assistant at the TSLPRB
office, who noted that the petition from Sri N. Kesava Reddy led to the
verification of the petitioner's documents and discovery of the
irregularity.The main inquiry report concluded that the charges were
proven. The petitioner was found to have committed two irregularities, i.e.,
1) claiming reservation under ex-serviceman quota knowingly that he is
"Non Ex-Serviceman" and, 2) wilfully providing false information in the
application form. Further, there is no record or any prior petition by the
petitioner requesting to review or amend his application, further
undermining his credibility.
3.3 It is contended that though the petitioner referenced a Gazette
notification dated 07.04.2017stating that vacancies under the Ex-
Servicemen quota could be filled by non-Ex-Servicemen if no qualified
wp_27814_2017
NBK, J
candidates were available, however, it does not apply to a candidate who
misrepresents his status at the time of application. It is contended that the
letter received from the Chief Record Officer, OIC Records, affirms that
the petitioner was discharged on 31.03.2007, after serving six years and 70
days under Rule 13(3) II (IV) of Army Rules, 1954, i.e., on his own request
for compassionate reasons, again confirming his non-Ex-Serviceman status.
It is contended that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in a fair
manner, and based on oral and documentary evidence, without any
procedural lapses. The respondent also refutes the argument that
responsibility for the improper scrutiny of the petitioner's application lies
with the recruitment authorities, asserting instead that the original records
had been destroyed and no specific accountability could be fixed. It is
contended that the petitioner misrepresented material facts in his
application and benefited from a reservation quota to which he was not
entitled. The disciplinary proceedings, including the suspension and
framing of charges, were based on an exhaustive inquiry and are legally
sound, and therefore there is no merit in the writ petition.
4. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner, in response to the
counter affidavit, mainly reiterating the averments made in his writ
affidavit. In essence, the petitioner contends that his dismissal from service
pursuant to proceedings dated 31.07.2017 was illegal, arbitrary, and in
violation of principles of natural justice. He asserts that he never claimed
reservation under the ex-servicemen quota but only sought age relaxation
based on prior military service, and that he submitted a non-ex-serviceman
discharge certificate voluntarily. The reply affidavit emphasizes that the
disciplinary proceedings were predetermined and prejudiced, as there was
simultaneous issuance of the charge memo and appointment of the enquiry
wp_27814_2017
NBK, J
officer on 19.04.2016. The petitioner further contends that the enquiry was
vitiated by bias, procedural irregularities, and reliance on inadmissible or
irrelevant witness statements, particularly since key records had already
been destroyed in 2013. It is contended that there is no concrete evidence
proving that he misrepresented his status, and further contended that the
findings against him were based on assumptions rather than substantive
material.
5. Heard Mr. J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. A.
Satya Sree, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services (Home) for
the respondents. Perused the record.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order
of dismissal dated 31.07.2017 is arbitrary, violative of principles of natural
justice, and illegal. While making submissions in line with the writ
affidavit, learned counsel essentially contends that the petitioner never
claimed reservation under the ex-servicemen quota, but merely sought age
relaxation permissible under Clause 7(B)(b)(iv) of the recruitment
notification by submitting an army discharge certificate clearly showing
him as a "non-ex-serviceman". It is contended that the petitioner underwent
physical efficiency tests as a regular candidate and was never informed,
either in the notification or in his appointment order, that he was selected
under the ex-servicemen quota. It is further contended that the disciplinary
proceedings were initiated based on a complaint that was neither disclosed
to the petitioner nor verified through a proper enquiry, and that the
preliminary enquiry conducted by the Additional S.P., dated 16.02.2016,
was one-sided and predetermined, relying solely on statements of
ministerial staff who were themselves implicated but later exonerated due
wp_27814_2017
NBK, J
to destruction of recruitment records on 26.02.2013. It is contended that the
enquiry process is biased and prejudiced as the charge memo and the
appointment of the enquiry officer has been simultaneous i.e., on
19.04.2016. Learned counsel also contends that the enquiry officer
exceeded the scope of the charges and relied on statements of witnesses
unrelated to the recruitment process, while denying the petitioner an
opportunity to cross-examine key witnesses such as Fahimuddin. It is
contended that the findings were unsupported by any material evidence,
and the petitioner cannot be penalised in the absence of any concrete proof
of misrepresentation or fraud.Learned counsel assails the departmental
proceedings, on the ground of procedural lapses, scope of charges, and
violation of principles of natural justice. He relies on 1) Allahabad Bank vs.
Krishna Narayan Tiwari 1 to contend that the Court can interfere if there is
violation of principles of natural justice in the disciplinary proceedings; 2)
State of Assam vs. Mohan Chandra Kanta2 to contend that there should be
reliable evidence to sustain the charge and that in the instant case the
impugned punishment was based on assumption and not proof; 3)State of
Uttaranchal vs. Kharak Singh3 to contend that the petitioner was not
furnished with the required documents, and mere denial for the sake of
denial is not an answer to the specific allegations in the affidavit;4)
Narinder Mohan Arya vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd 4to contend that
the Courts can interfere when the impugned action is based on no evidence;
5) Khem Chand vs. Union of India5 and State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Om
Prakash Gupta6to contend that in a domestic enquiry, fairness in the
(2017) 2 SCC 308
(1972) 4 SCC (N) 11 == AIR 1972 SC 2535
(2008) 8 SCC 236
(2006) 4 SCC 713
AIR 1958 SC 300
(1969) 3 SCC 775
wp_27814_2017
NBK, J
procedure is a part of the principles of natural justice; 6) K.L. Tripathi vs.
State Bank of India7to contend that exercising of discretionary power
involves two elements, i.e., (i) objective and (ii) subjective, and existence
of the exercise of an objective element is a condition precedent for exercise
of subjective element; 7) Sawai Singh vs. State of Rajasthan 8to contend that
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is not possible to lay down any
rigid rules of the principles of the principles of natural justice which
depends on the facts and circumstances of each case but the concept of fair
play in action is the basis;8) Kuldeep Singh vs. Commissioner of Police9to
contend that suspicion or presumption cannot take the place of proof even
in a domestic enquiry, and the Court can interfere with the findings of fact
of any Tribunal or authority in certain circumstances; 9) Sher Bahadur vs.
Union of India10to contend that the evidence has to be relevant and
sufficient to link the charged officer with the misconduct alleged;and 10)
Vikas Pratap Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh11to contend .
7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents
contended that the dismissal of the petitioner by order dated 31.07.2017
was lawful, justified, and in strict conformity with the applicable service
rules and principles of natural justice. It is contended that the petitioner had
secured appointment in the police department under the ex-servicemen
quota despite not being eligible, as evidenced by his own admission that he
was a non-ex-serviceman. The respondents pointed out that during the
verification process, it came to light that the petitioner had marked "Yes" in
Column No.8 of the application form, indicating his claim for reservation
(1984) 1 SCC 43
(1986) 3 SCC 454
(1999) 2 SCC 10
(2002) 7 SCC 142
(2013) 14 SCC 494
wp_27814_2017
NBK, J
under the ex-servicemen category. It was argued that this false
representation materially affected his eligibility and selection, as he had
availed age relaxation meant specifically for ex-servicemen. The
respondents maintained that the charge memo was issued after a
preliminary enquiry conducted by the Additional Superintendent of Police,
CID, Telangana, who recommended disciplinary action based on the
available material, including the statements of ministerial staff involved in
the recruitment. Although the original recruitment records were destroyed
on 26.02.2013 as per departmental procedure, sufficient secondary
evidence and corroborative statements were relied upon during the regular
enquiry. The disciplinary proceedings were conducted fairly and in
accordance with Rule 20 of the CCA Rules, affording the petitioner
multiple opportunities to explain his case. The enquiry officer found the
charges proved, and the disciplinary authority, being competent and vested
with jurisdiction, passed the impugned dismissal order based on the
findings. It was therefore asserted that the petitioner's misconduct went to
the root of the recruitment process and that the penalty imposed was
proportionate to the gravity of the offence.
8. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record,
it may be noted that the primary allegation against the petitioner pertains to
his having allegedly secured appointment in the year 2012 under the ex-
servicemen quota despite being, by his own admission, a non-ex-
serviceman. The petitioner does not deny that he submitted an Army
discharge certificate, dated prior to his appointment, which expressly
described him as a non-ex-serviceman. The core of his defence is that the
said certificate was submitted not to claim the benefit of ex-serviceman
reservation but merely for age relaxation under Clause 7(B)(b)(iv) of the
wp_27814_2017
NBK, J
recruitment notification. However, this assertion is countered by
respondent authorities by contending that in Column No.8 of the
recruitment application, the petitioner had answered "Yes" in response to
the question regarding ex-serviceman status. Destruction of records on
26.02.2013, or otherwise, is not the issue at hand. It is undeniably admitted
fact that the information furnished by the petitioner at the time of his
application for the post of ASI, is not true and correct. Destruction of
records by the departmentcannot absolve the petitioner from the
consequences of misrepresentation, especially when departmental records,
including ministerial staff statements given under enquiry, consistently
corroborate the misrepresentation.
9. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to Rule 2(16) of the A.P. State
and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 - relevant portion of which reads as
follows:
(16) Ex-Servicemen: "Ex-Servicemen" means a person who has
served in any rank (whether as a combatant or as a non-
combatant) in Regular Army, Navy and Air Force of the Indian
Union but does not include a person who has served in the
Defence Security Corps, the General Research Engineering Force,
Lok-Sahayak, Sena and the para-military forces i.e. Border Security
Force, Central Reserve Police Force, IndoTibetan Border Police,
Central Industrial Security Force, Central Secretariat Security
Force, Assam Riffles and Railway protection Force and
I. who has retired from such service after earning his / her
pension; or
II. who has been released from such service on medical
grounds attributable to military service or circumstances beyond
his control and awarded medical or other disability pension; or
wp_27814_2017
NBK, J
III. who has been released, otherwise than on his own
request, from such service as a result of reduction in
establishment or
IV. who has been released from such service after
completing the specific period of engagement, otherwise than at
his own request or by way of dismissal or discharge on account of
misconduct, inefficiency and has been given a gratuity and
includes personnel of the Territorial Army of the following
categories; namely:-
(a) pension holders for continuous embodied services;
(b) person with disability attributable to military service; and
(c) gallantry award winners
Explanation: The persons serving in the Armed Forces of the
Union, who on retirement from service, would come under the
category of ex-servicemen, may be permitted to apply for re-
employment one year before the completion of the specified terms
of engagement and avail themselves of all concessions available to
ex-servicemen but shall not be permitted to leave the uniform until
they complete the specified term of engagement in the Armed
Forces of the Union.
9.1 A perusal of the rule position at Rule 2(16) shows that there is
specific exclusion of persons from ex-servicemen category who were
discharged on their own request. The letter addressed by the Lt.Col/Chief
Record Officer of the Army, to the Additional DGP, vide letter
No.14642714/SR/T-5/NE-1 dated 06.04.2017 states that the petitioner has
been discharged under Rule 13(3) III (IV) of Army Rule, 1954 at his own
request on compassionate ground after rendering 06 years and 70 days of
service, and the individual comes under "non ex-servicemen", and that the
wp_27814_2017
NBK, J
DOPT Memo dated 27.03.2012 speaks of the definition of ex-servicemen
and who could be considered for employment in civil with age relaxation.
A perusal of the said correspondence does not show that the petitioner is
entitled to the status of ex-servicemen, or that persons with non-ex-
servicemen status can claim age relaxation.
9.2 Be that as it may, the Rule 2(16) extracted above clearly bars a
person who has been discharged at own request from the ambit of ex-
servicemen status. It is relevant to note that at page No.53 of the counter
affidavit (running page No.262), the respondents have placed on record the
copy of Application form of the petitioner with Registration No.318630,
with his photograph affixed and signed across. A perusal of the Application
Form would show that the petitioner has answered "1" (i.e., "yes") to the
claim of Ex-servicemen Quota, by mentioning his Date of entry as
22.03.2001 and date of discharge as 31.05.2007, with total service rendered
as 06 years 02 months 10 days. Further for the next column, as to whether
he submitted relevant certificate, petitioner mentioned "1" (meaning
"yes"). It is the very pleading of the petitioner that consequent to the death
of his father, he wanted to look after his mother, and he made a request to
the Army authorities and they discharged him on compassionate grounds.
Mentioning in the discharge certificate that the petitioner is eligible for
civil employment cannot be construed that the petitioner is entitled to age
relaxation that is normally permissible in the case of an ex-serviceman. The
argument sought to be canvassed that he tick-marked "yes" for ex-
serviceman quota only for the purpose of age relaxation and not to claim
ex-serviceman quota cannot be countenanced, for, if such contention is to
be accepted, the petitioner ought to have supported his contention with an
authority that permits him to make such declaration solely to avail age
wp_27814_2017
NBK, J
relaxation by simultaneously producing a non-ex-serviceman discharge
certificate. The discharge certificate issued to the petitioner by the Army
authority does not specify that he is entitled to only age relaxation but not
for other benefits of an ex-serviceman. When the Application Form clearly
asked the candidate to state whether he is claiming ex-serviceman quota, it
implies whether he is an ex-serviceman, to which the obvious answer in the
case of petitioner should have been a "No"; and further the column is
objective in nature, i.e., the answer could either be Yes or No; and not
subjective in nature so as to give room for interpretation or assumption, to
mean "merely for the purpose of claiming age relaxation".
9.3 The petitioner having served in the Army, albeit for around 6
years and discharged at his own request, cannot be said to be ignorant of
what constitutes an ex-serviceman and what does not; and the petitioner has
admittedly answered the relevant Column in the Application Form
regarding ex-serviceman status in the affirmative, stating "Yes", thereby
declaring himself to be an ex-serviceman when admittedly he was not even
as per the Discharge Certificate issued to him by the Army authority. A
simultaneous enclosing of a "nonex-serviceman" certificate cannot absolve
him of the ambiguous declaration constituting misrepresentation in the
selection process.
9.4 Furthermore, while the petitioner claims that he never availed
of relaxed physical standards applicable to ex-servicemen, and underwent
the same physical efficiency tests as general category candidates, this
averment is irrelevant to the main charge. The core issue is not whether the
petitioner benefited from the quota per se, but whether he claimed such
status dishonestly in his application. The petitioner's repeated assertion that
wp_27814_2017
NBK, J
he was never informed that he had been selected under the ex-serviceman
quota is neither supported by record nor does it negate the import of his
affirmative declaration in the application form. The petitioner's case thus
hinges on technicalities rather than substantive rebuttal of the charge.
9.5 Significantly, the respondent has placed on record the
preliminary enquiry report dated 16.02.2016, submitted by the Additional
Superintendent of Police, CID, Telangana State, which recommended
removal from service. Although the petitioner alleges that the preliminary
enquiry was one-sided, conducted without examining him, and relied solely
on ministerial staff statements, it is evident that the subsequent disciplinary
enquiry remedied this procedural lacuna. A formal charge memo was
issued on 19.04.2016, to which the petitioner submitted a detailed written
explanation dated 02.05.2016. An enquiry officer was duly appointed (also
on 19.04.2016), and the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the
Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules.
The petitioner participated in the enquiry proceedings, received copies of
the material relied upon (including the statements of the three ministerial
staff members), and was given an opportunity to submit a further
explanation upon receiving the enquiry officer's report dated 07.02.2017,
which he did on 20.03.2017. Thus, the allegation that the principles of
natural justice were violated is without merit.
9.6 The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, predominantly relate to the judicial intervention in the actions of
respondent authorities not supported by proper evidence, or violation of
principles of natural justice. In the instant case, though it is contended that
the issuance of charge memo and appointing an enquiry officer were done
wp_27814_2017
NBK, J
on the same day, that by itself does not vitiate or prejudice the enquiry
process, as the petitioner was given opportunity to represent his case, and
the petitioner utilised the opportunity. It is not the case of the petitioner that
his explanation was not considered or that he was not permitted to furnish
any documentary evidence in support of his case after issuance of charge
memo. The procedure under Rule 20 of the CCA Rules does not prescribe a
mandatory cooling-off period between issuance of charge memo and
appointment of the enquiry officer, provided that the charged officer is
allowed to respond to the charges and participate fully in the enquiry. In
this case, the petitioner availed both opportunities.
9.7 With regard to the argument that the enquiry officer went
beyond the scope of the charge, it is to be noted that the charge against the
petitioner was specific, i.e., misrepresentation of ex-serviceman status in
the recruitment application. The enquiry officer's findings were confined to
this issue. The petitioner's attempt to impugn the enquiry findings on the
ground that a key witness (Mr. Fahimuddin) was not examined does not
merit consideration, as the enquiry officer examined alternative witnesses
and relied on available documentary and testimonial evidence, and the
inability to examine one transferred officer does not, by itself, vitiate the
entire proceedings.
9.8 Further, it is settled law that suppression of material facts or
making false claims during recruitment, even if discovered belatedly, is
sufficient ground for termination as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of India12.Moreover, the communications
from the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) and
(2010) 14 SCC 103
wp_27814_2017
NBK, J
recommendations from the Sainik Welfare Department do not restrain the
disciplinary authority when the misconduct pertains to misrepresentation in
the recruitment process, and the final disciplinary decision was taken after
independent application of mind by the competent authority under the
service rules.
9.9 It is settled law that this Court in exercise of supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 226 is not an appellate authority to re-appreciate
the evidence in a disciplinary proceeding, and the disciplinary authority is
the sole judge of facts. Furthermore, the impugned order of dismissal dated
31.07.2017 refers to the charge against the petitioner, the findings of the
enquiry report, the petitioner's explanation, and the result of the enquiry,
and the order was passed by the competent authority. In that view of the
matter, this Court does not find any illegality or impropriety either in the
conduct of departmental proceedings or in the impugned order dated
31.07.2017.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
16th September, 2025
ksld
