[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
M.A. Jabbar Khan vs The Additional Superintendent Of ... on 8 April, 2026
1
SK, J
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION(TR) No.644 of 2017
DATE: 08.04.2026
Between:
M.A.Jabbar Khan.
...Petitioner
AND
1. The Additional Superintendent of Police (Admn),
Adilabad and (14) others.
...Respondents
ORDER:
Heard Sri Mohammed Habeebuddin, learned
Counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Services-Home appearing for
the respondents and perused the material available on
record.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
this Writ Petition is filed questioning the impugned
order No.C.No.06/PR/A/2010-2013 (RO No.54/2013),
dated 22.02.2013 issued by the respondent No.3,
whereby an amount of Rs.85,164/- was ordered to be
SK, J
recovered from the salary of the petitioner towards
alleged misappropriation of Travelling Allowance (T.A.)
amounts.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further
submits while the petitioner was working as Police
Constable at PS Utnoor, he was transferred to District
Police Office, Adilabad. After reporting duties, he was
directed to assist the ministerial staff of B-Section and
he was entrusted duties of preparation of T.A. bills.
While it being so, certain irregularities in T.A. bills of
police personnel of the District were noticed and on
that basis, the petitioner along with some ministerial
staff were suspected of being involved in
misappropriation, for which a criminal case in Crime
No.97/2010 of Adilabad II (Town) Police Station under
Sections 409 and 420 IPC was registered against the
petitioner and he was arrested on 28.04.2010 and
remanded to judicial custody. Simultaneously,
SK, J
departmental proceedings were initiated under the A.P.
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules, 1991 (for brevity, "Rules 1991"), by framing
charges vide Memorandum No.6/PR/A/2010, dated
21.06.2010 issued by the respondent No.3 against the
petitioner and certain B Section Clerks and the Section
Superintendent. In response to the same, the
petitioner submitted his explanation.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the departmental enquiry was conducted
in violation of principles of natural justice and the
petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity.
Pursuant thereto, the respondent No.3 issued orders
vide C.No.06/PR/A/2010-13, R.O.No.54/2013, dated
22.02.2013, ordering recovery of Rs.85,164/- from the
petitioner, and the respondent No.2, in turn, issued
C.No.11/PR/A6/2010 (D.O.No.939/2013) dated
SK, J
02.04.2013, directing effecting such recovery from the
petitioner.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further
submits that after filing the instant writ petition, the
criminal case filed against the petitioner was disposed
of by acquitting the petitioner in CC No.322/2015 on
23.01.2023 on the file of Special JFCM for trial under
PCR Act, Adilabad and in view of the same the
impugned recovery order is liable to be set aside and
requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the
impugned orders dated 22.02.2013 issued by the
respondent No.3 directing recovery of Rs.85,164/-
from the petitioner's salary and consequently to refund
the amounts already recovered.
6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for Services-Home, basing on the counter filed
by the respondent No.2, submits that the petitioner
SK, J
was attached to B Section of the District Police Office,
Adilabad, vide orders in D.O.No.3628/2006,
C.No.518/A9/2006, dated 07.11.2006, specifically to
work as Computer Operator and to assist the B
Section clerks in preparation of T.A. bill Annexures-I
to IV. Instead of discharging this duty honestly, the
petitioner indulged in criminal breach of trust and
misappropriated Government money by altering the
bank account numbers in the annexures and diverting
the T.A. amounts to his own bank accounts and
caused a total amount of Rs.85,164/- to be credited
into these accounts by substituting his account
numbers in place of the accounts of concerned
SIs/ASIs/HCs/PCs. Later, the petitioner withdrew the
amounts from his accounts on various dates. The T.A.
clerks and the Section Superintendent, B Section, were
also found to have committed gross negligence in
SK, J
scrutiny of T.A. bills and were proceeded against
departmentally for major penalty.
7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further
submits that the respondent No.3-Deputy Inspector
General of Police, Karimnagar Range, initiated
departmental proceedings against the petitioner, the
T.A. clerks and the Section Superintendent by issuing
the Charge Memorandum in C.No.6/PR/A/2010 dated
21.06.2010. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer,
Bhainsa, was appointed as Enquiry Officer, conducted
an oral enquiry and held the charges proved against all
the charged officers including the petitioner. As the
matter involved a vigilance angle, the respondent No.3
forwarded the oral enquiry records to the Vigilance
Commission for its advice through the Home
Department, and the Government vide Memo
No.22107/Ser.III/A2/2012, Home (Ser.III) Department,
dated 24.01.2013, read with C.O.Endt.No.2397/
SK, J
Appeal-5/2012, dated 11.02.2013, ordered recovery of
Rs.85,164/- from the petitioner, since the entire
misappropriated amount stood credited into his
accounts and withdrawn by him, while in the case of
DPO staff and Section Superintendent, the lapse was
confined to scrutiny.
8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further
submits that, in the light of the said Government
instructions, the respondent No.3 issued orders vide
C.No.06/PR/A/2010-13, R.O.No.54/2013, dated
22.02.2013, directing recovery of Rs.85,164/- from
the petitioner and pursuant thereto, the respondent
issued C.No.11/PR/A6/2010 (D.O.No.939/2013) dated
02.04.2013 for effecting such recovery from the
petitioner's salary. An amount of Rs.7,164/ was
recovered from the petitioner's salary during the
months of April and May, 2013 and credited to the
Government, until the learned APAT granted interim
SK, J
orders on 18.06.2013, thereupon further recovery was
stopped. The entire misappropriated amount was
credited into and withdrawn from the petitioner's
accounts.
9. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further
submits that the other employees who faced
disciplinary proceedings along with the petitioner have
deposited the amounts as ordered by the respondents
and the petitioner alone approached this Court and
there are no merits and requested to dismiss the Writ
Petition.
10. After hearing both sides and on a perusal of the
entire material on record, this Court is of the
considered view that while the petitioner was working
in District Police Office, Adilabad the respondent
authorities have initiated a criminal case against the
petitioner in Crime No.97/2010 under Sections 420
SK, J
and 409 of IPC on the file of SHO., Adilabad-II Town
P.S and subsequently the respondent authorities have
also initiated departmental proceedings against the
petitioner vide Memo No.6/PR/A/2010, dated
21.06.2010 on the ground that the petitioner
committed irregularities by transferring the TA Bill
amounts of Police Personnel working at various police
stations into his back accounts and thereby
misappropriation of an amount of Rs.85,164/-.
11. The respondent authorities have given
particulars of the Bank accounts of the petitioner as
well as the details of the amounts credited to the said
accounts in the Charge Memo dated 21.06.2010. The
petitioner has not denied the said account numbers
belongs to him or the amounts credited to the said
accounts, but it is the contention of the petitioner that
he is not the competent authority to release the
amount and all the officers are responsible for the
SK, J
release of the said amounts. In the pleadings or in the
explanation submitted by the petitioner to the
disciplinary authority, the petitioner has not denied
that the accounts in which the amounts were credited
not pertaining to him.
12. The petitioner contended that he was acquitted in
the Criminal Case on 23.01.2023 registered against
him in CC No.322 of 2015 on the file of Spl. Judicial
Magistrate of First Class (PCR) Court, Adilabad and in
view of the same the impugned recovery order is liable
to be set aside. The above said contention of the
petitioner cannot be acceptable as the standards of
Criminal Proceedings and the departmental
disciplinary proceedings are different footing and
acquittal in a criminal case would not automatically
entitle the petitioner to discharge from the disciplinary
proceedings.
SK, J
13. In the instant case, the petitioner nowhere
mentioned that the account numbers mentioned by
the respondents, in which the amounts were credited,
not belonging to him. Moreover, similarly situated
persons have already deposited the amounts as
directed by the respondent authorities in view of
common enquiry conducted against the petitioner and
others. The Government issued Memo
No.22107/Ser.III/A2/2012, Home (Ser.III) Department,
dated 24.01.2013 taking into account of the report of
the Enquiry Officer and also lapses on the part of the
other Officers, directed the respondent No.3 to take
steps to recover the amount from the petitioner, and
the same was forwarded to the respondent No.2 and
in view of the same the respondent No.2 issued
impugned Proceedings No.Cr.No.11/PR/A6/2010
dated 02.04.2013 for recovery of the amount of
Rs.85,164/- from the petitioner.
SK, J
14. The respondent authorities after following the due
procedure ordered for recovery of the amount from the
petitioner and there are no violations of AP CS (CCA)
Rules, 1991. The petitioner nowhere denied about his
bank accounts in which the amounts were credited.
The only defence of the petitioner in his explanation
and in the disciplinary proceedings is that he is not the
competent authority to sanction the TA Bills and in the
light of the Enquiry Report and the Vigilance report,
the said contention cannot be acceptable. The order of
impugned recovery of amount is a minor punishment
and the respondents after conducting enquiry and
taking into account of the explanation of the petitioner
passed the impugned recovery order and it does not
calls for any interference by this Court and the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed.
15. In view of the above findings, this writ
petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
SK, J
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in
this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
_____________________
JUSTICE K.SARATH
Date: 08.04.2026.
trr
