[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
S.Pitcheswara Rao vs The Govt. Of Telangana on 25 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
Dated this the 25th day of March, 2026
WRIT PETITION No.20951 of 2018
Between:
S. Pitcheswara Rao .. Petitioner
AND
The Government of Telangana, represented by its Prl.
Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Hyderabad and
three others
.. Respondents
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner to
quash the Order passed by the A.P. Administrative
Tribunal in O.A. No.7520 of 2013, dated 14.09.2016, and
to release all consequential benefits.
2. Heard Sri B. Krishna, learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home
appearing for the respondents.
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
(a) Petitioner filed O.A.No. 7520 of 2013 before the
A.P. Administrative Tribunal challenging the order of the
2nd respondent wherein punishment of RTSP by 3 stages
for 3 years with effect is awarded and the period of
suspension from 04.05.2007 to 15.10.2008 is treated as
'Not on duty' vide proceedings in D.O.No.4049,
No.L&O/B7/346/2007, dated 2-6/7-2013 as illegal.
(b) The petitioner was initially appointed as a Police
Constable and subsequently promoted as Head Constable
and posted at CAR (Central Armed Reserve) Hyderabad. In
the year 2007, while he was working on deputation at
Cherlapalli Jail, he was assigned the duty of escorting the
convicted prisoners. On 27.04.2007, the petitioner was
entrusted the duty to escort two convicted prisoners
namely Afzal (No.7697) and Syed Arshad Baqtiquar
(No.7701) along with another PC-9065 Sri E.Paul to
Osmania General Hospital for treatment. The two
prisoners were taken to Neurology Department to consult
the doctor concerned, but the doctor was not available at
his room No.213, they proceeded to Room No.214 where
they were directed to go over to Osmania General Hospital
old building Room No.219. Again, the junior doctor
stationed there, directed them to go to "Quli Qutub Shahi"
block Room No.404. There also, they did not find any
doctor to get treatment for the prisoners and therefore, the
fact was informed to the Head Constable Manaiah and
further informed that they were coming to the vehicle. This
information is given to Sri Manaiah by a cell phone.
(c) Before going to the vehicle, the petitioner asked
E. Paul, PC-9065 to get Tiffin and offered Rs.50/-, but the
PC rejected to bring Tiffin. While they were coming down to
the vehicle, Syed Fazal, one of the convict prisoners,
pushed the petitioner down and escaped from his custody.
Though he tried to chase the prisoner, he could not
succeed. In view of the said incident, the petitioner was
placed under suspension by disciplinary authority vide
D.O.No.1027/No.L&O/87/346/2007, dated 01.05.2007.
Subsequently, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the
Assistant Commissioner of Police, III CAR Head Quarters,
Hyderabad, and submitted his report dated 23.4.2007.
After receiving the said report of the ACP, it was decided
by the competent authority to conduct a regular enquiry
and therefore, a charge memo was issued vide No.
L&O/B9/PR/73/07 No.L&O/B9/346/2006, dated
31.8.2007 which reads as under:
Article of Charge:
S/Sri S.Pitcheswar Rao, HC 1144 & E.Paul, PC 9065
of (G) Coy, CAR Head Quarters, Hyderabad, were on
deputation to jail department and while they were
performing Escort Duty at Osmania General
Hospotial on 27-04-2007, the two CT Prisoners 1)
Syed Afzal No.7697 2) Syed Arshad Baqtiqar,
No.7701 of Charlapalli Jail escaped from their
custody from Osmania General Hospital. The
prisoners escaped from the custody due to gross
negligence and dereliction of duty.
S/Sri S.Pitcheswar Rao, HC 1144 & E.Paul, PC 9065
of (G) Coy, CAR Head Quarters, Hyderabad, by their
above mentioned act, has exhibited lack of devotion
to duty and conduct unbecoming of a Government
Servant and thereby contravened Rule 3(1) and (2) of
the APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
(d) The petitioner submitted his explanation for the
charge memo on 10.10.2007 and denied any kind of
negligence and also stated that instead of giving two
security persons for one prisoner, the authorities gave only
one security for one prisoner which is contrary to the
provisions. The Inspector of Police, Mahankali Police
Station, Secunderabad, was appointed as Enquiry Officer
and the said officer conducted the enquiry and submitted
his report stating that the charge framed against the
petitioner was proved. While the enquiry was pending, the
petitioner was reinstated into service vide
D.O.No.3458/No.L&O/B7/346/2007, dated 15.10.2008.
(e) The competent authority sent a notice to the
petitioner to submit petitioner's explanation to the enquiry
report and he submitted his explanation, stating that
several lapses in conducting the process of enquiry. In the
report, it was shown that, the petitioner did not handcuff
the prisoner when he was taken to the Osmania General
Hospital for treatment. In the explanation, the petitioner
stated that the prisoner was handcuffed, but that fact was
not properly appreciated by the Enquiry Officer. Based on
the report of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority
imposed a punishment of 'reduction of Time Scale of Pay
by three stages for three years with effect' and further, the
period of suspension of the applicant from 04.05.2007 to
15.10.2008 is treated as 'not on duty' vide
D.O.No.4049/No.L&O/B7/346/2007, dated 2.6/7.2013.
(f) Questioning the punishment order dated
2.6/7.2013 of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed
O.A.No.7520 of 2013 before the A.P. Administrative
Tribunal and the said O.A. was listed on 14.09.2016 under
the caption of 'for dismissal' and the O.A. was dismissed
for default.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
counsel, who was appeared on behalf of the petitioner, was
a Government Pleader and he did not appear before the
Tribunal when petitioner's case was called. There was a
communication gap between the petitioner's earlier
counsel and the petitioner, as such, he could not inform
the petitioner about the dismissal of petitioner's O.A.
Later, when the petitioner approached his earlier counsel,
he was informed about the dismissal of O.A. and the
petitioner got the certified copy of the same.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that the petitioner could not file restoration petition before
the Tribunal as the jurisdiction of the Telangana State was
withdrawn by the Government of India in the month of
September 2016. A.P. Accordingly, prayed to allow the
Writ Petition.
6. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents filed counter by contending that the Tribunal
in its orders dated 14.09.2016 in O.A.No.7520 of 2013
dismissed the OA for default, as there was no
representation on behalf of the petitioner though the OA
had been listed under the caption of 'for dismissal'. The
petitioner and co-delinquent E.Paul, PC 9065 of 'G' Coy
CAR Hqtrs., Hyderabad, were on deputation to Jail
Department and while they were on escort duty at
Osmania General Hospital on 27.04.2007 two Convict
Prisoners namely Syed Afzal and Syed Arshad Baqtiyar
escaped from their custody from Osmania General
Hospital, as such, for their gross negligence of duty and
irresponsible behavior they were placed under suspension
vide D.O.No. 1027, dated 01.05.2007.
7. Learned Government Pleader further submits that as
per the norms the convict prisoners should have been
handcuffed but that was not done by the above escort
Police personnel, while escorting them to the Quli Qutub
Shah Block of OGH. Only one person i.e. the petitioner
was standing near the two convicts, whereas PC 9065, Sri
E. Paul went inside. The petitioner allowed convicts to use
cell phone, which led the above said two convict prisoners
to escape from OGH. Thus, they had exhibited gross
negligence, irresponsible behaviour and dereliction of duty
while performing escort duty on 27.04.2007 and thereby
contravened Rule 3 (1) and (2) of Andhra Pradesh Civil
Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
8. Learned Government Pleader further submits that
the petitioner and co-delinquent had submitted their
written statements of defence on 12.10.2007 (PC 9065)
and 22.09.2007 (petitioner) respectively denying the
charges leveled against them. After going through their
written explanations, oral enquiry was ordered against
them appointing Inspector of Police, Mahankali P.S.
Hyderabad, as Inquiring Authority vide proceedings dated
05.03.2008. The Inquiring Authority had submitted that
during the enquiry proceedings, it is clearly established
that the C.T Prisoners 1) Syed Afzal NO.7697 and 2) Syed
Arshad Baqtiyar No.7701 of Cherlapally Jail were handed
over to the petitioner and co-delinquent PC 9065 Sri
E.Paul for escort to Hospital. They were taken to OP block
where the duty doctor not available. They were again taken
to Qulli Qutub Shah building for treatment where also the
duty doctor was not available.
9. Learned Government Pleader further submits that
when the duty doctors were not available in the consulting
rooms, it is the duty of a police personnel who are allotted
escort duty to the prisoners, have to return to the vehicle
and to hand them over to the In-charge, HC, but they
failed to do so. The petitioner also gave a chance to the CT
Prisoners, who were notorious Rowdy Sheeters of
Humayun Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad, involved in
several bodily offences and convicted in a Murder case, to
talk over mobile phone which shows their gross negligence
towards legitimate duties. Based on the documentary and
oral evidence adduced during the Oral Enquiry, the
Inquiring Authority after following the prescribed
procedure of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules 1991 had submitted his
findings holding the charge as 'proved' in respect of the
petitioner and co-delinquent PC 9065 Sri E. Paul.
10. Learned Government Pleader further submits that
the contention of the petitioner that the punishment is
disproportionate and improper and unjust is not correct.
As per norms, the Convict Prisoners should have been
hand cuffed which was not done by the petitioner and his
co-delinquent who were deputed to guard them as they
were life convict prisoners and the PC and the petitioner
had not carried their weapons which shows their gross
negligence. The Disciplinary Authority had gone through
their final explanations and the connected records
carefully and they were awarded the punishment as stated
supra. The said orders were acknowledged by the
petitioner and co-delinquent PC 9065 Sri E.Paul on
15.07.2013 and 13.07.2013 respectively.
11. Learned Government Pleader further submits that
the petitioner had filed O.A.No. 7520/2013 before the
Tribunal against the punishment and the Tribunal by its
orders dated 14.09.2016 dismissed the OA for default, as
there was no representation on behalf of the applicant
though the OA is listed under the caption of 'for dismissal'.
Moreover, the petitioner had approached the Tribunal
without exhausting the proper channels of appeal and
revision petition. The petitioner has to avail the
opportunity of preferring an appeal to the next appellate
authority i.e Director General of Police, Telangana,
Hyderabad as per Telangana Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 within 3 months from
date of receipt of orders of the Disciplinary Authority.
12. Learned Government Pleader further submits that
the oral enquiry was conducted, as per rules giving
reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself
during the oral enquiry. There is nothing illegal on the part
of the respondent in issuing impugned order as
disciplinary action was taken strictly in accordance with
Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules, 1991. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the
Writ Petition.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed reply affidavit
reiterating the contents of the petition and further submits
that the petitioner was given one handcuffs at the time of
passporting for escort duty, as such, he handcuffed the
C.T. Prisoner 7697 Syed Afzal at the Hospital, while
returning to the vehicle the said prisoner suddenly pushed
him aside and ran away. Immediately, the petitioner
followed the prisoner up to the bus stop, but in vain. The
petitioner never gave a cell phone to the prisoners to talk
them with somebody, which led to escape them. There is
no evidence in the enquiry and no witness has been said
about the same. As such, the other delinquent officer PC
9065 Sri E. Paul is not a witness and not examined in the
enquiry conducted against the petitioner. Thus, merely
based on surmises and conjectures the charge cannot be
proved.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
"Narayan Dattatraya Ramteerthakhar Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others" reported in SCC 1997 (1) 299,
the full bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court categorically held
that the preliminary enquiry has nothing to do with the
enquiry conducted after the issue of the charge-sheet.
Therefore, the contention of the Enquiry Officer does not
stand for legal scrutiny, as there is no evidence adduced in
the full pledged oral enquiry about that the petitioner was
allowed to use the cell phone by the C.T. prisoner, is far
from the truth.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
the Jail officials knowing fully that the OP will be closed by
the 11.00 am at Osmania General Hospital, the officials
handed over the prisoners at 10.15 am at Cherlapalli Jail.
It is highly not possible to reach the Hospital by 11.00 am
in the vehicle. It is also high handedness of the higher
officials while detailing the petitioner on escort duty. The
officials did not inform the petitioner about the nominal
roll of the C.T. Prisoners who are notorious criminals and
they were convicted life prisoners. The officials also
knowing fully about the C.T. Prisoners, they detailed one
escort to one prisoner which is also not in according with
the guidelines, normally they have to give two escorts to
one prisoner. Having fault with the higher officials and
made the petitioner as scapegoat in the escape of the C.T.
Prisoners.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that, it is the duty of the officials to handover the weapons
to the escort guards. In the instant case, petitioner was
handed over one handcuff only at the time of handing over
the L.T. Prisoner, which the petitioner handcuffed the
prisoner at the time of escape. Thus, the impugned
punishment orders dated 02.06.2013 is illegal and liable
to set aside.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT:
17. A perusal of the record shows that on 27.04.2007,
the petitioner was entrusted the duty to escort two
convicted prisoners namely Syed Afzal (No.7697) and Syed
Arshad Baqtiquar (No.7701) along with another PC-9065
Sri E.Paul to Osmania General Hospital for treatment.
Due to the gross negligence and dereliction of the duty of
the petitioner, the said prisoners escaped from the custody
of the petitioner and another constable. The contention of
the petitioner is that, generally, the OP is closed by 11
a.m. at Osmania General Hospital. Knowing fully about
the said timings, the officials handed over the prisoners to
them at 10.15 a.m. at Cherlapally jail. In the said
circumstances, it was not possible for them to reach the
said Hospital by 11 a.m.
18. The other contention of the petitioner is that, the
officials did not inform the petitioner about the normal role
of the Lifetime petitioners who are notorious criminals and
they were convicted life prisoners. They detailed one
escort to one prisoner which is also not in accordance with
the guidelines. Normally, they have to give two escorts to
one prisoner. It is the duty of the officials to hand over
weapons to the escort guards. In the instant case,
petitioner was handed over one handcuff only at the time
of handing over the LT prisoners.
19. Per contra, it is the contention of the respondents
that as per the norms, the convict prisoners should have
been handcuffed but that was not done by the above
escort Police personnel, while escorting them to the Quli
Qutub Shah Block of Osmania General Hospital. Only one
person i.e. the petitioner was standing near the two
convicts, whereas PC 9065, Sri E. Paul went inside. The
petitioner allowed convicts to use cell phone, which led the
above said two convict prisoners to escape from Osmania
General Hospital. Thus, they had exhibited gross
negligence, irresponsible behaviour and dereliction of duty
while performing escort duty on 27.04.2007. In that view
of the matter, the negligent actions of the petitioner cannot
be denied.
20. It is not disputed by the respondents that they did
not provide four escorts for the two convicted persons. It
is also not disputed by them, as per petitioner's
contention; generally, the OP is closed by 11 a.m. at
Osmania General Hospital. Knowing fully about the said
timings, the officials handed over the prisoners to them at
10.15 a.m. at Cherlapally jail. In the said circumstances,
it was not possible for them to reach the said Hospital by
11 a.m. It is also not disputed by the respondents that
they did not provide weapons to the escort guards. In the
said circumstances, there are lapses on both sides from
the departmental side and escorts' side. Thus, the
petitioner only cannot be made scapegoat for the entire
episode.
21. In view of the foregoing discussion, this court is
modifying the punishment order of the 2nd respondent in
D.O.No.4049, No.L&O/B7/346/2007, dated 2-6/7-2013
from reduction of time scale of pay by three stages for
three years with effect on future increments and pension,
to that of reduction of time scale of pay by one stage for
one year with effect on future increments only from
01.05.2007 till his date of superannuation, but not in
pension.
22. Wit the above modification, this Writ Petition is
disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
Date:25.03.2026
BDR
