E. Samuel John. S/r v. 'I . The State of Telangana, Rep. bJ lts

Order

Heard Sri Ch.Venkat Raman, learned counsel appearing on behatf of the petitaoner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services (Home) appearing on behalf of the respondents' 2 The oetitroner a ooroached the Cou rt seekinq Dra ver as und er: "...to issue to a writ, order or direction and more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the Proceedings Rc' No' TSPF/A3/PR/17/2020-22 - O.o. No- A-22/2022, dated 2S.0r.2022, issued by the 2nd respondent, awarded "RTSP by 2 stages with cumulative effect for 2 years" as punishable under Rule 9 of Telangana State Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991 and the period spent under suspension of 509 days from 06'06'2019 F.N. to 27.10.2021 A.N. is treated as "Not on Duty" and the period of unauthorized absence of 43 days from 23.q.2020 to 05.06.2020 AN is treated as "LWP". which was confirmed by the l't respondent, vide Memo No.3890/Ser.Ill/AL/2022, dated 04.07.2022, Rc.No.SPF/A3 IPR/17 /2020-22, dated 15.07 .2022, inspite of criminal proceedings are pendlng on the same charge in Crime No. 164 of 2020, dated 24.4.2020, as illegal, improper, arbitrary, unjust, irrational, contrary to the Telangana Civil Servlce (Classification, Control Appeal) Rules, 1991, communicated 4 SN.J wp_1425 2023 violative of principles of natural justice, violative of Arts. 14, 16, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and unconstitutional, by holding that the initiation of entire process of enquiry conducted by the 3'' respondent is not in accordance of ihe Telangana Civil Service (Class ifica tion, Control Appeal) Rules, 1991, proving the Charges I and II against the petitioner is void abinitio, null and void and nonest in the eye of law, and to pass.,,

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner, while serving as Assistant Commandant, TSpF, KTPS, Palvoncha, was implicated in Crime No. 164 of 2O2O for alleged theft of teak wood, based on a complaint made by one M. PuruShotham Reddy. The petitioner was suspended on 06.06.2020, and a departmental enquiry was initiated and subsequenUy charges were framed, and the Enquiry Officer held them as proved. Despite the criminal case being under investigation and no charge sheet filed, the 2nd respondent vide order dated 25.01.2022 imposed a punishment of reduction of two stages in time scale for two years, treating the suspension period as "Not on Duty,, and absence as "LWp". The petitioner,s appeal was rejected vide order dated 04.07.2022 by the 1st respondent without valid reasons. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. -'.- I 5 SN.J wp 1425_2023

4. PERUSED TH RECO&D: A) The releva nt Dortion of the i ouoned order dated 25.01.2 O22 vide Rc.No. PF/A3I PR/17 / 2020- f the resoonden No.2-The Direct r General of 22 Poli e, Tel anoana State Pro Force, r e extracted hereun der: f s oeriod e as therefore award erR The ',RTSP bv 2 es with cumulativ e effect for 2 vears'as Rules 1991 oent u nder su s Dension of (5O9) davs from 06.06 .2020 ANi N dutv' and the Deriod of unautho rized absence of (43) davs from 23.O4.2O2O AN to os.o 6.20 20 AN is treated as LwP'. It is certified that the procedure in Rule 20 of TSCS (CC&A) Rutes, scrupulously followed. laid down 1991, is o.2 n Acknowledge the receipt proceed ing . " B) The relevant oortion ed order dated o4.o7.20 2 vide Memo No.3 9OlSer.II IlALI mDuon 22 t o h resD ondent No.2-the Director Gener lofP lice, Telanqana Stat Protectio n Force, S ecunde rabad. is extra cted hereunder: \ 6 SN,J wp 1425 2023

2. TSPF KTPS

"The attention of the Director Gen era I Telang ana Special protection Force Secunderabad is invited to the reference 1 cited wherein Sri E.Samuel lohn Assista nt Commandant Ramagunda m (formerly of TSpF RTS Paloncha) had preferred his Appeal petitio n to the Gove rn m ent "Withholding of rncrement of pay for a period of one year with cum ulative effect,' imposed by the D isciplinary authority of TSSpF Secunderabad. I ar ul against the punishment m o Sri E .s m el e As rs n o m Ramagundam (formerly of TSPF, KTFS Paloncha) TSSPF with the remarks/records furnished by the Director General, Telangana Special Protection Force, Secunderaba d h r f a f n n e siti u d to consider his request. _ 3. The Director General, Telangana Special Protection Force, Secunderabad, i; e;;.i;'. intimate the same ro the appticint, ,nt"i-piJp". acknowledgement.,, J RTS a er r m e t t o e e h h P c) r he rel va t o n ntN 2-T Di e of h n a o P tc T an an ion F I a d 2 2 VI ER o F A P 2 u o h n rh n er 7 o ex a h ereu nder: e "T Sri E Sa RT P u A r s n a A un m f e ti n m f T ..4"-'-.-*G-. r// -1, 7 SN,J w_1425 2023 n h b nt vi e b a retected the same, since it is not feasible for . A copy of the said Government memo is enclosed herewith. Acknowledge the receipt Government memo immediately." The co u nter affidavit has bee n filed on behalfof ents 1 to3an dinoa rticular Da raoraoh resDon D) .24 25 22 n o r ts r whi t "24. In reply to paragraph 21 & 22, it is denied that the appeal of the Petitioner was rejected by the 1" Respondent without assigning any valid or substantial reasons. The Order e ate 25.O eals wi h the Dunishment Petitioner and im DOSeS thouqht fit bv the Di sciDlina rv Au horitv. The 1st Resoon ent th uqh Memo dated 04. 7.2022 has ri htlv dismissed the Ap eal filed bv th Petiti ner by taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case. It is denied that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is excessive and d isproportionate ' It is submitted that th DUnis hment imoosed on the Petitio errsD oortio nate to the na ure oft he Dosition heldbv the Pet tioner a nd c Petita oner.

25. In reply to paragraph 23 it is denled that the order dated 25.O1.2022 passed by the 2nd Respondent and the Memo dated 04.07.2022 issued by the 1" Respondent are in any manner illegal or contrary to the provisions of the service rules or in violation of the principles of natural o d 8 SN,J vvp_1425-202i justice. In Iight of the above, it is humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition filed by the petitioners and pass any other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.,, DISCUSSI ON AND CONC LUSION:- 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner had submitted his detailed explanation dated 23.07.2020 to respondent No.2, requesting that the c.harges against him be dropped. However, the. impugned order Rc.No.TSPF/A3/PR/t7/2020-22 dated 25.Ot.2O2Z was passed against the petitioner by respondent No.2, imposing a cumulative punishment for a period oF two years under Rule 9 of the TSCS (CC&A) Rutes, 1991. Further, the suspension period of 509 days from 06.06.2020 (FN) to 27.70.2021 (AN) was treated as ,Not on Duty,, and the period of unauthorized absence of 43 days from 23.O4.2020 (AN) to 05.06.2020 (AN) was treated as Leave Without pay (LWP).

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that, aggrieved by the impugned order 9 SN,J w_t425_2023 dated 25.01.2022 passed by respondent No.2, the petitioner preferred an appeal to respondent No.1. However, respondent No.1, vide impugned proceedings dated 04.07.2022, rejected the appeal without assigning any reasons, except stating that it is not feasible for consideration as per the existing provisions, since there are no grounds to consider the petitioner's request. The said order was communicated to the petitioner through the impugned letter dated 15.07.2022 of the 2nd respondent, thereby upholding the cirder of respondent No.2 dated

25.01.2022.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the alleged involvement of the petitioner in the theft of teakwood stocked beside shed No.07 at KTPS, Palvoncha on 14.04.2020 in Cr.No.164/2020, under Section 380, 409 read with 34 IPC of Palvoncha Town Police Station was the very basis for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and for passing of the orders against the petitioner by the respondent No.1 & 2 herein which are impugned by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition and that judgment had been delivered on 30.06.2025 by the III t t0 SN,J wp 1425 2023 Additional ludicial Magistrate oF First Ctass (Criminal Court for Agency Areas), Kothagudem, in C.C. No.10 of 2023 arising out of Crime No.164 of 2O2O of p.S. palvoncha Town, wherein the petitioner was acquitted.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that, in view of the clear findings in favour of the petitioner in the judgment dated 30.06.2025 in C.C. No.10 of 2023 in Crime No.164 of 2O2O of p.S. palvoncha Town, on the file of the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Criminal Court for Agency Areas), Kothagudem, the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present Writ petition.

9. Learned Assistant Government pleader for Services (Home) appearing on behalf of the respondents places reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit, in particular, paragraph Nos.4, 5, B, 10, 16, and 24, and contends that the petitioner is not entiued to the rerief sought in the present writ petition, as the final report in the disciplinary proceedings held the petitioner as guitty of the charges revered against the petitioner vide Memorandum of 11 SN,J wp_1425 2023 charge, dated 10.07.2020 issued to the petitioner, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

10. A bare oerusal of the iudqment, dated

30.06.20 25 Dassed in C.C. o.1 o of 2023 arisin o out of Cr.No.164 of 2O2O of P.S. Palvonch a Tow n indicates h t the c uitted the r observin that no case was made out for convictin o the accused rta tGat lt c in the absanra af and alasr r,tiAattz.a and Cou further held that the orosecution failed to rove t and other a ccused bevond all reasonable doubt, ion of the he etiti resultino in the acouittal of the oetitioner alono with ten others, a d therefore, this Court ooines that the oroceedinos initiated aoainst the disci ol i na rv iti ner whi h m ril Crime No.164 of 20 2O reoistered on 14.O4.2O2O. and h tm u n d 1 2 d resoondent N o.2 and mechanicallv uoheld bv resoondent N o.1 on O4.O7.2022 and communicated to the oeti ner throuqh the imouoned letter dated dent needs +.r ha I 5.07 ,.la) a'tltatlt t h 2nd t2 SN,J wp_1425_2023 since b re oerusal of Memorand um of cha roe issu ed bv the I th re N d d 1 .o7.2 o 2 P o.1 IP to nd clea rl r rS cti n 38O O9r dwi tati n had ner tha P lice T n 34 de artm ntal roceedinos were initiated ao ain st the w hh a h Detata oner vrdeo rder, dated 3o.o6.2 O25 on the c urt of III Addition alJ dicial Maoi strate of First Class c r a a reoular trial and on contest.

11. A bare perusal of the charges in the disciplinary proceedings indicates that they are identical to the charges in the criminal case C.C.No.10 of 2023 on the file of the III Additional ludicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem in Cr.No.16412020 of palvoncha Town police Station registered aga inst the petitioner. / l3 SN,J w_l425-2023 The memorandum of charqe issued bv the resDondent o.2 aoainst the oetitaoner vide Rc. No. TSPFI A3ITRI L7 l2O2O. dated LO.O7.2O2O, farmino the followinq charqes is extracted hereunder: "Article -1: That the said Sri E. Samuel John, Asst. Commandant, (U/s), TSPF, KTPS, Paloncha being a public servant committed criminal Breach of trust and involved in the theft of teak wood stocked beside Shed No. 07 at KTPS, Paloncha on 14.04.2020 in Cr. No. 764/2020, U/s 380, 409 r/w 34 IPC of Paloncha Town Police Station. With the said stolen teak wood, he got prepared wooden door and window frames for his house being constructed at Hyderabad city. Consequently, he was placed under suspension vide Rc. No. TSPF/A3IPR/17/2020, O.o. No. A- 14812020, dated 06.06.2020. Article II: That the said Sri E. Samuel John, Asst. Commandant, (U/s), TSPF, KTPS, Paloncha became AWL w.e.f. on 23.04.2020 AN. Consequently, he was placed under suspension vide Rc. No. TSPF/A3/PR/17/2020, O.o. No. A- L4B/2020, dared 06.06. 2020. " The charoe framed ao inst the Detitio er was admittedlv a borne on record, due to the alleoed involvement of petitioner in a theft of teakwood k de sh 7ot PS P lv resultino in institutinq of a criminal case aoainst the Detitioner, t is Court opines that since the criminal l4 SN,J w 1425 2023 1 ) I I l a elf e s r a at s h tition r a f, n to beu ntenableincou rtofLaw, the verv basls of the a e had b en an a ct th t vt w fth f o t esa d o e o t. Th n r f c a eb d rda o 6.2 2 t at c 1 2 2 c u o ln s sa m e ca nnot SDon ent No.2 ou nd re onsider DU n ishm ent lmDo eds aqa ln d d lst nof ta ln the Detitio d d 5 1 o22 a on t e e o 6 the p 2 c o o f o r I I Mao istrateofFi rst Clas ,Kothaq ude m f eof h a ed r f in fav dt. Judi L2, Th v d r o e a d n al I e n s o a hereu nder: - n of th m t A c rt nfe D v n n h su tai b ti f n e s c d n di c e tm n r c e ln s s are e tra 5 SN,J wp 1425_2023 A) The ADex Court, in the iudomen t of "G.M. Ta nk vs, State f Guiarat & Ors.," reoorted in (2O06) 5 SCC that if the charqes in the

446. dated 1o.O5.2006 hel disciolin arv oroceedinos are iden tical to those in the crimina I case, and t e emolovee h as been hono urablv h cflm he di R n rnutn would not be iusti ed and the relevant oar oraoh Nos.3O and 31 of the said order are e racted hereu nd er: ]rafa re th riminal c u rt 3O. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents are distinguishable on facts and on law. In this case, the d oartmental Droceedinos and the criminal case are based on identi al and facts and the cha r e ina similar set of deoa rt ental case aq inst the aooellant and re on +hec hr and the same. It is true that the nature of charge in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal case is grave. The nature of the case launched against the appellant on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during enquiry and investigation and as reflected in the charge-sheet, factors mentioned are one and the same. In other words, charges, evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and the same. In the present case, criminal and departmental proceedings have already noticed or granted on the same set of facts, namely, raid conducted at the appellant's residence, recovery of \ \ \ \ l6 SN,J !vp_1425 202-l articles therefrom. The Investigating Officer Mr V.B. Raval and othe r departmen tal witnesses were the on ly witnesses examined by the enquiry officer who by relying u pon their state ment came to the conclusion that the charges were esta blished against the appel la nt. The sam e witnesses were examined in the criminal case and the criminal court on the exami nation came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the guilt alleged nt beyond an reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant b its judicial pronounce ment with the finding that the charge has not been proved. against the a ppella v r r I

31. In our opinion, such facts and evide nce in th e departmen tal as well as crimr nal proceedings were the same without there bein I any iota of difference/ the appellant sho uld succeed. The distinction which is usuall y proved between the depart mental and criminal roceedings on the basis of the approach and p urden of proof would not be applicable in the b rnstant case. Though the finding recorded in the do mestic enquiry was found to. be valid by the courts below when there was an honourable acqulttal of the em ployee during the pendenc yof the proceedings challenging the dismissal same req uires to be taken note of and the e st n n An o c 7 L t er a a s 1 a lo e iI c t 9 h 3 b a h L t7 SN,J wp_1425 _2023 In he c s VE r c N 2 c o.1 4ot 20 n3

6.2 2 b he II Add l.Judic ial Maoistra of Fir Cla (Cri ina! C urt r n Area Kot !so s a ue rt B) The ADex Cou o h 9 o Vs G the iudom nt dated in M.P ul 67 1 99 Min Ltd. n DaraoraD h No.34 observed s un er: r n a r h e t a sw re

34. There is yet another reason for discarding the whole of the case of the respondents. As oointed out o identical set of facts, namely, 'the raid conducted at the appellant's residenc e and recoverY of incriminating a rticles therefrom.' The findlngs recorded bY the Inq uiry Officer, a coPY of whi ch has been Placed indicate that the cha rges framed aga in st before us, the appellant were soug ht to be proved bY Police Officers and Panch witnesses, who had raided the house of the appellant and had effected recovery' They were the only wltnesses examined by the Inquiry Officer and the Inquiry Officer, relying upon their statements, came to the concluslon that the charges were established against the appellant' The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case but the court, on a consideration of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that no search was conducted nor was any recovery made from the residence of the l8 SN.J wp t425-2023 s e f appellant h h u lon wa thr wn ut t d tt d. In this situation therefore, where the appellant is acquitted by a .1udi cial pronounceme nt with the finding that the "raid and recovery,' at the residence of the appellant were not proved, it would be unjust, untair and rather oppressi ve to allow the findings recorded at the ex- parte depa rtmental proceedings, to sta n d. n t t s b rV in th iud qment dated 30.o6 .20 25 in c. Cr. o.1 4 2 of s al on a .No.1O of 2023 tn w on h it of he ou II d lcr M a ct ss Cri for A n h ro cu n a s K a ud e e m ion of offens ebv the acc use bevond a ll reaso nab le doubt. c) T e e u m nt da d o4.12.2023 reDO rted in( 2 o24) 1SCc1 5 rn "Ramlal v s h n Daraqraoh Nos. 28 and 29 bserved as und r: s te of d a r x r 28 a In the present ca SC the Appeltate tud ge has recorded that Ext. P-3, the original mark sheet ca rries the date of birth as 21 -4-7972 and the same has also been proved bvthe witnesses examined on beh of the prosec I u tio n. W l9 SN,J wp_t425_2023 a t I d h I a r e d f t o T uti n a t c Drove the cha rqe can o lv earrlve at after a f a c n the su bsta nce oft hei do ent and not oo bv the formof XD s n used. 29. We are satisfied that the findings of the Appellate Judge in the criminal case clearly indicate rhat the charge agai nst the appellan t was not just, not proved" in fact the cha rge even stood "disproved" by the very prosecution evidence. As held by this Court ,a fact is said to be ,'disproved,, after consideri ng the matters before it court either believe s .that it does not exi st or r to be "not proved,, when it is neither ,'proved,, "disproved" U.P. lVijayee Singh v. State of Lt.p. 190 1990 SCC (Cri) 37Bl ). see Viayee Singh v. State A fact is said (1990) 3 SCC ( n h DA raq raD o. 3

30.o5. 2o25 Cr.No. L64/20 20 f e o II A t a e rel va I ent, da d .c. o.1 o P. s.P lvo cha Townont he file o23 IM r e Fir s c m I u Ko a u e erv d r u er: -

23. _ conression and According to the seizure statement of panchanama PW.4 20 SN,J wp_t425 2023 conducted at police station. Whereas, as per the statements of pW.5 the same was conducted as KTPS V and VI sta ge gates. There is the contradiction in the statement of p.W4 and 5. Therefore, the court cannot place reliance in the evidence of pW .4 and 5 , who made contrad icto statements agaisnt each other on materi al pa rticulars. Moreover, the prosecution fa iled to age to establish their version oF committi ng of ofrense by the accused Persons. The eviden ce of the prosecution became suspicious. uce the CCTV foot ]t n h the accused acquitted. No.1 to 11 are deserved Hen ce, to be T scourt ove f n tn e to er heretn e rd rs a s d n a d he e e h n tssati dt at tn he teethoft t e c IS li a n a ur f o b d all wed to n N s & o n DOse qai ns a consider the DU nts hment ti to I vid R N F A P a e

1.2 t h 2nd oco n d ra s rV 7 d n o o- 2 d n vo r ti n v t d k ffi. a@ 2l SN,J wp-l425_2023 2 o 6.2025 I I Na f tnr2 Cr.No.16 412 20 ol P .s .P lvoncha a To wn on the fi e of the Court of III Addl. Judicial Maqi rate of First inal Court for Aoencv areas, Class (Cri Kothaqudem) and also the observa tions of the in the iudqments (refe rred to and ADex Court extracte d above) D) The Divi on Bench iudoment of this Court in in 1999(1) A.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. T.VenkataDati reDorte s A.P.L.J. 189( HC)- in W.A.No.124 of 1 9 99. dated O4.O2.t999 is extra cted hereunder:-

1. The writ petitioner was prosecuted for alleged offence of murder of his wife. The death of the wife of petitioner took place on 25th of February, 1996. The petitioner was working as Depot Controller at Srikalahasti Depot of the Andhra.Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short the 'R.T.C'). A prosecution was initiated against the petitioner after registration of crime. In the mean while the department initiated departmental proceedings on the following cha rg e "For having involved in a criminal case of alleged killing on 25-2-L996 which has resulted in framing criminal case against you as Crime No. 30 of 1996 under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C) by Muthyalareddypalli police station which amounts 22 SN,J wp 1425 2023 misconduct under Sec.29 (xxxi) of A.p.S.R.T.C. Employees Conduct Regulations, 1963.,, 2. The criminal prosecution initiated against the petitioner ultimately ended in acquittal in S]C.No. r of 1997 before the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupathi by judgment dated B-B-1997. The said acquittal has become final. However, the disciplinary authority in the departmenta l_enqu iry, upon completion of the enquiry passed orders on 28_ 11_ 1996 removing the petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred appeal against the said order. The same was dismissed. The review petition was also dismissed by the Regional Manager of the R.T.C. As a result, the petitioner F led the writ petition to challenge the order of his removal. 3: The learned Single Judge held that 1 the disciplinary authority was in error in holding the petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him in disciplinary proceedings in view of the ludgment of the Court. The petitioner-delinquent was entitjed to be cleared of the charge in disciplinary enquiry and accordingly allowed the writ petition. 4. Challenging the order of the learned sin gle Judge, the R.T.C. has filed this Writ Ap peal. We find no merit in the appeal inspite of the pe rsuasion of the learned ccunsel for the appellant-R T.C. We have already pointed out as to what cha rge was framed in the d isciplinary enquiry against th e petitioner. It has to be noted that the charge was not for the substantive act of having caused death of the wife. The charoe was rw sln olv em t It s un er s I.P C. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in course of the enquiry the petitioner had himself stated that death of his wife wa s result of his delinquen cy. It is argued that tn vtew of this admission of the petitioner the d isc iplin a ry a uth ority was justified in accepting the v cnm al t r n t d 2 h r 23 SN,J w_t425_2023 o e o of same and Court cannot reappreciate the evidence. We fail to understand as to how the statement of petitioner was relevant in the instant case. The charoe was onlv for involvement in a criminal a criminal case case re ultino in instatutin aqainst the oetitioner. As soon as the criminal case itself was found to be untenabl e n Court of law, the verv basis of the charoe as knocked should have been o uashed as out. The char and when the criminal case ended in acou itta l. Involvem ent in a crimi al case which was not tenable in Court of laW can hardlv amou t to anv delinq uencv. It cannot be disputed that the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold O disciplinary enquiry on the same charge as is before a Criminal Court because the scope of disciplinary enquiry and a criminal trial ls different. But where the charge in the discipllnary enquiry is necessarily dependent 5 on the result of the criminal case if the criminal case itselF ends in favour of the delinquent, the charge in the disciplinary enquiry will become unsustainable one. [n the facts and circumstances of the case having regard to the charge framed against the petitioner and having regard to the result of the criminal case, we have no manner of doubt that the learned single Judge was right in allowing the petitioner's claim. In view of the fact the oetitione r had been acouitted in he criminal case, this Cou the charoe in the d sciolinarv oroceed inos will oDines that become unsustainable one. t? A lrr ra er sal of th rA indi a=iac t h consequential orders, dated O4.O7.2022 of the 2"d resDondent clear v indi cates that Aooellate Authoritv 24 SN,J wp 1425 2023 did not aDDlv its mind indeo endentlv and reiected the a r titi era tn e of "withh oldino of incr ement of oa for a oer iod of rwt h mul o a st h e r era I SPF Sec u ndera bad without ass!o ntno a nv sln le rea exceot statino there are n Detitioner's reou est. qrounds to consrder 1 n Thi ha eof ird es ar boun to dici Auth Dass detailed reasone ech n cal! a sua I ann with ind. not act I cati n The Aoex Cou rt in th reDortedin (20 10) 9 scc 496 in Kra nti Asso lates PrivateLimited TU do ent n er v. a ther at ra 47 das und Para 47 : Court holds: Summarising the above discussion, this (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative 75 SN,J wp_1425J023 decisions, it such decisions affect anYone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of iustice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any * possible arbitrary exercise of iudicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons riassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (t) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural iustice by judicial, quasi'judicial and even by ad m i n istrative bod ies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision- making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. )6 SN,J wp_)425 2023 (i) Judiciat or guasi-iudicial opinions these days can be ,,"n"n different as the iudges and authorities wno aetilt rer them. All these decisions serve one commo d e m o n s t ra te u r r". lo n : ::: :;: r":::::, il r rr' i, have been objectivety considered. This ,s important for sustain- titigants' raith in the justice derivery sysr"'lr1 '0" (j) rnsistence "n reason is a reguirement for both iudicia, "o " ::: ::::::: ;::, :: :r::r:::rr", ( k ) r f a r r r, candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible uno* whether the person deciding is faithfut ,o' 'o tr i n e o r p rece d e n t o r to r, r r r", p ri n ci p t e s (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be r rl!,"r,llc " " cogen+ clear and su o r " ru b b er-s* - r r:::::,^,: ::::: with a valid decision_making process. ;t :;t":;: (m) It cannot bc the sine qua non of) p o w e rs. rra n s p a re n c y':: "; makes the judges and errors but also make scrutiny. doubted that transparency is t, :: r;: :::rt; r" ::' : : ; cision-makers less prone to ts them subiect b broader (n) Since the emanates from the decision _ ma king, requirement to record reasons broad doctrine of fairness in )7 SN,J wp_1425_2023 (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons, for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "due process".

15. A bare perusal of the record indicates that oetitioner vide detailed L4,O7.2O25 addressed to the 2"d resoondent i.e reoresentation, dated rG n r Telan ana S ecia I Pr t F Budda Bhavan, Secunderabad, requestedlo eonstder n r' se foi nomination of t further oromotion as to DPC for Detitioner's Additional Commandant, since the oetitioner is qoino to retire from service on 31.O8.2025 and the said reoresentation, dated 14.O7.2025. had been acknowledqed bv the office of the 2nd resDondent on

14.O7.2O25 itself. T that the b e n reconsideration bv the respondents herein in view of the acquittal of the petitioner vide verdict, dated C.No.1O oJ 2023 in Crime as din 2 2 3 28 SN,.I wp 1425 2023 N .t64 ot2o20 ofP.s. Palvo ncha Tow n, on th file of te of Firs I Cri inal C dl. udi a! Ma A n A K th in the ti ht oft hed rscuss para N os.5 to15of the Dresent i udom ent. con clusion asa rrivedat

17. Ta kino tnto con ideratio a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the tearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government pleader for Services (Home) appearing on behalf of the respondents, c) The impugned order dated 2S.OL.ZOZ2 vide Rc.No.TSPF/Ag/pR/17 /2OZO-22 of the respondent No.2-The Director General of police, Telangana State Protection Force, Secunderabad issued to the petitioner herein (referred to and extracted above), d) The impugned order dated O4.O7.2O22 vide Memo No.389O/Ser.IIt/AL/2O22 of the respondent 29 SN,J wp-1425-2023 No.1 addressed to the respondent No.2-the Director General of Police, Telangana State Protection Force, Secunderabad (referred to and extracted above), e) The proceedings of the respondent No.2- The Director General of Police, Telangana State Protection Force, Secunderabad dated L5.O7.2022 vide R.C.No.SPF/A3I PR/L7 /2O2O-22 issued to the petitioner herein (referred to and extracted above), f) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 and in particular, paragraph Nos.24 and 25 (referred to and extracted above), The iudqment, dated 30.06.2025 in C.C.No.1O of e) 2O23 in C -N o. 164 t2O2O of P.S.Palvoncha Town on the file of the Court of III Addl.Judicial Maqistrate of r I s c minal r c Kothaqudem]referred to and ertraeterl above) i0 SN..r wp_t425 2023 h) The judgments of the Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court(referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below:_ i) o 6 446 1 5 c c 3S 1 24 1 99 v 9 1 v) (2o 10) 9 scc496 .P.L. 1 8 c The Wri Pe t n o de t 1& 2 w d, trectinq r h nt h ent iti n t o.2 m o 2nd n o 2 2 e en res Don den t, wh ich was confirm ed d n 1 n04 o7 ition I n1 o7 2 2 2 a d 2b t m nt ere o d I an n n a d o st er n d n d 3 s d 2 2 o2 3. as well as the DE t ner's reD resentation ddre ssed to the reSDon dents t

14.o7 .2 25 o o n e u stncet he r o t tion raS du DE a er' sA diti n t reti re t e DP com ma nd nt f serv ce n id r ti nt e 3 1.08.20 25 b rV ti n in th ments of 3l d e r A e c u n h o d oa o rt t o w t tn n d SN,J wp.l125 2023 Di o Ben hof n s 2 w e s f o u I f e era d e d d t dL4 o n 5to t etiti n r iti n r e H v r th r s a o r r As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ petition shall also stand closed. so/- N. D HANDRA SEKHAR PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII One Fair Copy to the Hon,bte MRS JUSTTCE SU (For Her Ladyships Xira p?r-"-. SECTION OFFTCER REPALLT NANDA r) . 11 LR Copies. iff,l::i,"J-t;:fif " ili.i"#lirz;relanea Union or India Ministry or Law, Justice and company na Advocates Association Library, H is h court i;.5,;l;:i:JgjilJ#[:F."i4r##;tr?fi::::JreansanaS,a,e tri"lfffi x'ffiiffi ffi,:"::;#ti:*tFi##:,'"" \y To 1 2 J

6. 7. 8.

9. PSK. PSK. HIGH COURT DATED:1710712025 ORDER WP.No.1425 of 2023 CC TODAY o O ,( * I it S 4I'r. 02 llt! 2025 C * c. c)\ SPl]J.C\ ';r... ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT GOSTS @