Ramji v. '1 . The State of Telangana

Petition Under Artrcle 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order of direction, preferably one in the nature of writ of [\/andamus and to declare the impugned proceedings bearing N/2.o.No.373/2024 / Rc.No.PR/Appeat/tvZ-il1481t2024, dt.2otogt2o24 of the 4th respondent without any application of mind and without taking into any of the observations made by the Honourable Tribunal in orders in o.A.No.g075 of 2012, dt. 0511212014 while passing final orders by certain observations dt.2}lo8l2o23 in remitting the matter back in w.p.No.25027 of 2o1s by this Honourable court, without neither following nor observing any of the above said orders the present impugned rejection orders were passed, the said action of the respondents is as :.tr7 / ,;f / .' ----f ': a highly illegal arbitrary" unreasonable, discriminatory, without any application of mind and also in violittion of principles of natural .lustice and also in violz tion of Art. .14, 16 and 21 0f the constitution of India and declare the same as bac-in-law and set aside tne sarne consequently direct the respondents to release the with held increments and other consequential benefits for which the petitioner is entitled. l.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances s.ated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleitsed to suspend the impugned proceedings bearing I'AZ.O 'No '37312024 I Rc.No.PR/AppeallltlZ- lll481l2o24, dt. 2oto9l2o24 of the 4th responcent by directing the respordents to release the withheld increments anc other consequential benefits for which the petitioner is entitled, pending disposzrl of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI C.RAJA SEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : G.P. FOR SERVICES (HOME) The Court made the following ORDER '{'\ THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK IVRIT PETTTION No.489 ot 2025 ORDER: This writ PeLition, under Article 226 or the constitution of India, is hled seeking the lbllowing relief: "... to issue an appropriate Writ, Order of direction, preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus antl to declare tl_," i..,prlgrr"a grggeedings bcaring MZ.O.N o.323 /2024 7 nc.No.pR/np pcd/MZ_ 1l.4al/2024, dt.20-09 2024 of Ll.re 4J,respondent withouf lpplication of 3ln{ -an! .without taking into any of the observations made by the Hon'ble Tribunal in orders in o.A.No.8o75 of 2012, it."os_tz zotc rvhile passing final orders by certain observations dt.28 08 2023 in ren)itting tlle rnatter back in W.p.No.2SO27 of ZO1S Ly tnis lton,Ute Court, without neither follorving nor observing any ol tire above said orders.the prcsent impugncd rejection orj"." "r*." passc<l, the saidaction of the r.espondents is highl5. illegal, arbitrary, uireasonabte, discriminato-ry, without any apptica-iion nr i-ri"a in viotation of prrncrptes ot natural justice and also in violation ofArt- 14, 16 & 21of the Constitution of India and declare the sarne as t ^J_i.rir* ,r,a aside the same conscquently direct the respondenis i;;;l;;". ""t rhe wirh neld rncrements axd other consequential benefits for rvhich the petrtioner is entitled and pass...,, ^"J "f'"o

2. The brief facts of the case are that while the petitioner was working as Police Constable at p.S, Devarakadra, a charge memo dated 23'05 2008 was issuecl to three officers, inclucling the petitioner herein, for which, the petitioner submitted his written statement, denying the charges. However, having been dissatished with the said explanation, a common enquiry was conducted ancl the enquiry ofhcer submitted his reporL dated 3O. 1O.2O08, holcling the charges leveled against the petitioner and two others as proved. Thereafter, the disciplinary '5,;,. 2 PK, J W.P.No.489 of 2025 authority fur-Lishcd a copy of thc enquiry rcpol't to the petitione: vide Memo dated 25.71.2OOa, ar.d obtaincd detailed remarks. Subsequently, respondent No.l2 imposed the punishment of 'RTSP by 1 stage for 2 years r'vith efTec:t on future incremcnts and pension' vide proceedings dated 15.O1.2O09. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before rt:spondent No.4 on 78.O2.2OO9, and on consideration of the same, the sard penalty was modified to that of 'Postponem,:nt of Increments for one year with effect on fulure increments and pension' vidc proceedings dated O2.O2.2O10. Thereafter, the petitioner hal also preferred a revision before respondent No.5 on 19.04.2010, whice was rejected vide G.O.Rt.No.134 dated 09.O3.2072. Assailing the same, the petitioner, alor g s,ith the co-dclinqucnt, approached the erstwhile Andhra Pradesl-r Administrative Tribunal and hled O.A. Nos.SO7 I and 8007 of 2012, v.'hich were allowed vide order datcd 05.12.2014, ald the punishment orcler u,as set aside, with a direction to the respondents to relcase the nithheld increments and other consequential benefits to the petitioner. Hcwever, aggrieved by the said order, the resportdents carried the nral.tcr to this Court by hling W.P.Nos.25O27 and 2l')89 of 2O15, which rvere disposed of vide order dated 23.02.'2023, setling aside the order of the Tribunal, and the matter was remanded back to the appellate aut.hcrily to re-examine the modihed punishment in ter-ms of PK, J w.P.No.489 of 2O2S the observations mad.e by the Tribunal, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. pursuant thereto, respondent No.4 has passed the present impugned order vide proceedings in Rc.No.pR/A ppeaJ/MZ_ II / 481 /2024 daLed 20.09.2024. Hence, the present writ petition. Heard Sri C. Rajasekhar Reddy, learned counsel appeadng for the petitioner, and learned Government pleader for Services (Home), on behalf ol- the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Division Bench of this Court, while disposing of W.p.No.2 SO27 and, 21989 of 2015, q,as pleasecl to set aside the order of the Tribunal only on the ground that the Tribuna-l was not justified in straightaway setting aside the modihed punishment, instead of remanding the matter back for re_ examination. However, in spite of a spccihc direction of the Division Bench, to re-examine the modihed punishment imposed upon the petitioner in the light of the observations of the'rribuna-l in its order dated 05. L2.2O74 in O.A.Nos.gO7S and gO07 of 2012, respondent No.4 has erroneously issued the present impugned proceedings dated 2O.O9.2O24 in a mechanical manner, rejecting the case of the petitioner. It is further submitted that though this court has categoricaliy directed the appellate authority to re-examine the issue in light of the observations of the Tribunal, respondent No.4 has passed the present l i 4 DK, J W.P.No.489 of 2025 impugned rejection order only at thc instance of the Governm:nt, without proper application of mind and no reasons are assignecl in rejecting the clairn of the petitioner. As such, the present impugned rejection order is clcarly nol in consonance with the orders of the Division Bench o1'this Court. Therefore, learned counsel prays this Court to altow th: present writ petition by setting aside the impugned proceedings dat ed 20.O9 .2O24.

5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Services [Hotte), appearing on betLalf of the respondents, on frling of counter afltd lvit, submits that bast:d on the report of the Circle Inspector of Police d,rted 17 .O4.2OO8, respondent No.3 has issued an Article of Charge d eted

23.05.2008 vide N4emo.No.503/D 18/HR/2008, against the petiti,rner ald others. for 13ross negligence of their duties, specihcally, for not registering the czrsc and accepting bribe. Thereafter, al enquiry was conducted by providing a fair opportunity to the petitioner and cther individuals. Subsequently, the enquiry officer submitted his rellort, holding the chargcs leveled against the petitioner as proved be-'ond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, based on thc said report and the material on record, ald on considering the explanation of the petitioner that was unsatisfactory, respondent No.3 has imposed the penaly of 'RTSP by 1 stage for 2 years with effect on future increments ald 5 PK, J W.P.No.489 of 2O25 pension'. Later, on appeal, respondent No.4 has taken a ienient view artd modified the . said punishment to that of ,postponement of Increments for one year with effect on future increments and pension,, which was erroneously set aside by the Tribunal vide order dated 05.72.2014 in O.A.Nos.8O75 and g007 of 2OI2. As such, the Division Bench of this Court, while setting aside the order of the Tribunal, remanded the matter back to the appellate authority, i.e., respondent No.4. Accordingly, respondent No.4 has re_examined the issue ald passed the present impugned order dated 20.Og.2024, in accordance with law. As such, there is no illegality or infirmity in the said order. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.

6. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the materiai on record

7. Admittedly, the petitioner was earlier imposed with a punishment of 'RTSP by 1 stage for 2 years with effect on future incremenls and pension'vicie proceedings dated 15.0r.2o19, which was modified to that of 'Postponement of Increments for one year with effect on future rncrements and pension, vide proceedings dated 02.O2.2OlO. Thereafter, the punishment order was set aside in its entirety by the Tribunal vide its order datecl 05.12.2074 in O.A.Nos.gO7S and g007 of i I I I l I l I \&,\'.} 6 PK, J W.P.No.489 ol 2O25 \ \

2012. Howcvcr, the said ordcr of the Tribunal was set aside try a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 28 .O8.2023 in W.P.Nos.25027 and 21989 of 2015, and the matter was remanded l>ack to the authorities; for re-examination of the punishment imposed t pon the petitioner. Ttre relevalt portion of the order of the Division Ben<:h is extracted heretrnrler: "7. This {)ourt, having considered the rival submissions made by the parl.ies, is of the considered view that the Tribunal could not havc rr:-appreciated the cvidence ald set aside the moditred punishmen t as imposed by the appcllate authority. Therefore, this Court is of the view ttrat the Tribunal was not justified in setting asicle the entire punishment as modihed by the appellate authority and this Court, having considered the entire case, is of the view that the Tribunal ought to have remanded the matter to the appellate authority to re-examine the case of the respondents and pass rppropriate orders in accordance with law, but the Tribunal, irrstead of remanding the matters, has straightrvay set aside the punishment. Hcnce, ihe Tribunal was not justified. 8. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be :let, if both the matters are remanded back to the appellatc z.uthority to re-examine the modihed punishment as imposed b\/ the appellate authority in terms of the observations passed by the Tribunal ald pass appropriate orders in accordance with 1aw. Accordingly, both the matters are to the appellate authority to re-examine the case remanded of the respondents in terms of the Tribunal observations ard pass appropriate orders in accordance wrth law within a reasonable period of time i.e., preferably within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. With these observations, both these Writ Petitions are disposed of setting aside the order, dated 05.12.201,2 passed by the Tribunr{ in O.A.Nos.SOO7 & 8075 of 2012. No costs." .lack 7 PK, J W.P.No.489 of 2O25

8. From the above, it is clear that the Division Bench of this Court had interfered and set aside the order of the Tribunal on the sole ground that the Tribunal was notjustihed in re-appreciating the evidence and in straightaway setting aside the modirred punishment order in its entirety, as such, remanded the matter back to the appellate authority to re_ examine the case of the petitioner in terms of the observations of the Tribunal and to pass appropriate orders in accordance rvith law.

9. A perusal of the impugned rcjection order in MZ.O.No.373/2024 in Rc.No. PR/Apped / MZ-II / 48 1 / 2024 dated. 20.O9.2O24, discloses that the authority, instead of re-examining the matter on merits in the light of the observations of the Tribunal, as directed by the Division Bench, rejected the claim of the petitioner in a mccha,ical manner, without any reasoning and with reference to the findings or obser.rations of the Tribuna.l, as directed by the Division Bench. It is trite law that when a matter is rema,ded back to the authority with specific directions of the Courts, the authorities are bound to comply r,vith the same. However, in the present case, respondent No.4 has failed to follow the specific directions of the Division Bench and has rejected the appeal in a perfunctory manner. F\rrther, it is pertinent to note that the disciplinary f { proceedings commenced way back in the year 2O09, and even after the passage of almost sixteen years, the matter has not attained finality. \#' 8 PK, J W.P.No.489 of 2025

10. In the said circumstances, while this Court deems, it necessaty to interfere with the impugned rejection order, this Court is not inclined to remand the matlt:r back to thc very same authority for. any furthel re- cxamination. The:refore, the impugned rejection order dated 2O.O9.2024 is liable to be set rlside.

11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned rejection order vide MZ.O.No.373 /2024 in Rc.No.PR/ AppeallMZ-l|l4Al /2024 dated 20.O9.2024 passed by respondent No.4, arrd the responde:-rts are directed to release the withheld increments and all other consequontial benefits to the petitioner. Miscelianeous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/- C. Dt:EPIKA STANT REGISTRAR S SECTION OFFICER riat Buildings, Stale of

004. Telangana at FlYd erabad - 50O022.

1. The Princip al Secretary, Home DePartment, Sec 2. The Superinterrde nt of Police, It/ahabubnag ar, /ahabubnagar District 3. The DePutY lns;Pector General of Police, HYd erabad Range, HYderabad - 500 +. iie tnspector r3eneral of Police, Hyderabad Region, Hyderaba-d^-.500 004' 5. iii; Dl;5;biGeneral of Police, La(dikapo-ol, Hvderabad' 500 004 6. +;; cb';'t" op ron sEnVlcES, High court for the state of relangana at ? o;;-bt6sRl c.iRAJA SEKHAR REDDY, Advocate [oPUC] B. Two CD CoPies Hvderabad. (OUT) To SA GJP r rrr-t I n^l lFiT naun v\,rt.rr\ I DATED:2610912025 10 [[r W:!, t1 ,..:- ORDER WP.No.489 ot 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. \