The High Court · 2025

Heard Sri C Damodar Reddy' learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri C' Ruthwik Reddy' learned counsel for petitioner and learned Special Government Pleader for Home (Scrvices) on behalf of Respondents' The case of petitioner is that he r'r'e s selected and 2. appointed as Police Constable in 2nd BN at Kurnool in 1983 and discharged his duties regularl1' and sincerely for more trran \z years. Subsequently, he lvas promoted as Head Constable and transferred to 10h BN, APSP. Beechpallv in 1995 As things stood thus, on O2.O7.2014, petitioner rvas posted as store NCO and in-charge of Bell oi Arms at Quarter Guard of the said campus and since hc r'l'as unclcr severe mental agony and disturbed state of mind clue to thc death of his grandson' he took permission from STi NVAN Reddy' RSI' who was in duty at that time and went to his quarter and slepL and thereafter' the clut5, officer Sri. V. Laxmlnarayana' RI called him over phone and as per his direction, came to quarter guard and slept there 2 and further in the early hours at about S:3O arm in ihc routine course , peti,ioner opened Bell of Arms for veril_r,ing 1rc inract position of .a.rms and Ammuni[ion and closed the BelL o1. Arms. On 03.07.12O14, Sri. p. Samuel John, the \ssisrant Commanda.nt, loth BN TSSp, Beechpally gave a rn ririt n report to the Strt,-l nspector of police, Itiklala police Sratior i staring that one SI-FI Magazine loaded with 20 rounds of LO'lr BN.I.sSp i.e., Governntent property was missed by Sri. K Nareslr Kurnar, PC 8O2 of ''C" Co1, of the said unit while peritiuircr .\\as performinE I'ris duties at Battalion euarter Guard on 02.O7.2014 from 17:0t) hrs and at that time, number oi pr:rsonnel mentionecl therein are in du[r at euarter {iuard i;rclucling pelitioner airrl requested for necessary aclion. ilased on the said report, police rcsistcrerl Cnme No. 73 of 2OI1 for the offence under Section 379 IpC against unknou rr r(.cused. On investigation and on th(, rnlnrm rtion of ofhcers i.e 'y'. Laxminarayana, RI and KW prasad. RI .,r,.iro arr: inimical to\r.irrds petitioner, on 30.O7.2O14, periliol:r ,"vas arrested ancl :emanded to judicial custody by Lhe policc.on rhe allegation thar_ petitioner committed theft of SLR u ith 20 rounds t -) of Magazirre of Mr. Naresh Kumar' Further, based on the PE report daled o5.o7.2014 submitted by Sri' Jaggu Naidu' AssistantCommandant,the4hrespondentinitiateddisciplinary action against petitioner, one Md Nazeeruddin' HC 652' S. Radha Krishna, PC34O, Chinna Aylranna' PC 976' G' Krishna, PC 147 and K. Naresh Kumar, PC 802 of the said unit and placed them under suspension from service and petitioner was placed under suspension uide proceedings dated 05.O7.2O14 till conclusion of criminal and discipiinary proceedings. It is further stated that subscquently' the 4tn respondent revoked suspension order in respect of other persons who were initially suspended w'ithin two months however, they did not consider his case lt is stated that police hled charge sheet against petitioner on 30 08 2014' Further' uid-e Order dated 1O.1O'2O 14, the 4'h responrient ex[ended suspension of petitioner for a further period of six months' The 4th respondent issued Memorandum dated 1 5 10 2O 14 along wlth the state of Article of chargcs' Aggrieved by the suspension order' petitioner hled O.A. No. 2860 of 2O15; by order dated 24 09'2015' the Andhra I Pradesh Acln.r inis trative Tribunal directed responder-iLs io revierv suspensi.r-r crder and pass appropriate orders on , erits for reinst:ltement rr.ithin a period of eight u,eeks. Resl)ondent.,s initiated orrLl enquiry against petitioner in purs.u anct: oi Memora.rrllrnr of charges issued. petitioner riled uA. No 6366 of 2015 and 5r,' order dated 20.11.2015, the Tribunal dircctcd responden ts not to proceed u.ith disciplinan. proceer iings in respect ol r:irtrrges 2 and 3 till finalization of crimir.al case registered ag:Linst petitioner for the alleged thefr, ho,,r,er cr, thev are at libr:rtv to proceed tvith disciplinary case undcr the 1"r Article of Charge. Thereafter, the 4rh respondenL conCuc ed oral enquiry oi- rhe lst charge that petitioner cxhibitec gross misconduct b1,' failing to sleep at quarter guarcl on thc righr cf O2.O1.2O14 arLd on opcning ancl closing Bell o1-Arms of. {C) r-:o,r on olvn acc()rl. The 4th respondent issued finai orders dated 07.O1.2016 rc.moving petitioner from sen,ice br. revoking rhe suspension orclc;. r\glgrieved by the said removal order, pcl il ione r preferred Ap1>.a1 to the 5rh respondent _ Inspector Ge,r:rai oi Police, TSSP Batt:rlions, Hvderabad requesting to sc. .isi(lc , I ) removal order and reinstate petitioner into service However' the Appellate Authority mechanically rejected the Appeal on 22.03.2016.It is further stated that in C'C' No 251 of 2OL4' Iearned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Alampur uide judgement dated. 27 'lO'2018 acquitted petitioner finding that prosecutionfailedtoproducecogentandproperevidenceto prove the ingredient of theft' It is the case of petitioner that even after receiving the copy of -ludgement, respondents failed to reconsider the matter and review the order dated 07 Ol 2076 and thai respondents without waiting for the result of the said criminal case, issued order dated 07 -Ol 2016 removing petitioner from senice. As far as the 1"t charge is concerned' there was no misconductandgrossderelictionofdutybyfailingtosleepat quarfer guard on the night of o2'O7 '2014 $'arranting scvere penalrY of removal of service' The 4 ' respondent filed counter slating that 3. petitioner has no valid and substantial grounds to grant the relief since he hled appeal petition to higher authorities which vuas rejected vide order d'aLed 22'O3'2O16 and further petitioner l l 6 .i:'' :1.. Illed OA. No 6366 of 2OIS and OA No. 1746 ctt 2016 u,ith the same cause ,r,hich are pending disposal and further as per Rule 40 ol CCl, Rules, he can submit Rer.ision petrrror ro the Departmcnr Authorities and w-ithout exhausting the r:hannel available, h" approachecl this court. It w-as further statr:cl in ther counter t ltat pctitioner absented to dut-v unauthorizedly u,ithout intimation to anvone nor has taken any permission to l,:ave the duty. There ri'as theft of 7.62 mm Magazine No. i9a SA Italls (2O No's) on ()2.07 .2014 midnight for which the guard pt,rsonnei including pr:titioner are responsible as the1, were on (luq,, or_r [hat dare. irr.eliminary Enquiry conducted by the Assistant. Commandltr t revealed that petitioner un_authorizedlv at;senteri himself ro (llrtv and he had exhibited gross ncgligerce and miscondr,rct rn abscnting to dulv on such a very importalrt place at $.hich lzrrge arms and ammunition .,r,as storecl. Thus petitioncr vicltrred ApSp Manual Standing Ordcr No. l1(lX) and at abour 5:.10 AN4, petitioner opened the Head euarter C:v Bell of Arm u.ithor l anv reason and *,ithout permission of tite Guard Commandei and Duty Ofhcer at his own accord w,itltin 10 minutes lockcrl the same and went away from tltc pla,:e. On I I 7 physical verification by the Committee, two live rounds were traced in HQ Coy stores rvhich was illegally kept' Crime NO' 73 of 2014 was bookeci in Itikyala Police Station lt was further statcd in the Counter Affidavit that disciplinary action u'as initiatecl against all the guard personnel on duty on O2'O7 '2014 for lhat lapse involving theft of ammunition by placing the inclividuals under suspension including pelitioner on 05.O7 -2014. Suspension on other Srard personnel except petitioner was revoked subsequently while petitioner continued under suspension in view of his arrest and involvement in the case. [t is stated further that during the investigation by SI of stated that petitioner confessed that hc Itikyia PS, it was committed theft of Magazine from the Bell of Arms to se1l them outside on higher 15 SLR live rounds and one empty SLR rates [or self-benefit. it rs stated further that Sri Krishna Prasad' 4. Assistant Commandant conducted departmental enquiry following all the rules and procedures and submitted enquiry report dated 07.08-20 15 w'herein it was stated that ail the three charges against petitioner were proved in the Departmental I 8 Enquiry :rr: d agreeing s'ith the hndings of Inquiry authority, minutes of tre OE \,\.-a s communicated to petjtioner ciLlling for his explar-rzLtion on the minutes. Hou'ever, petitioner did not submit ant: expla-ation and approached Andhra praclesh Appellate Tribunal wherein vide interim Order dated

20.11.2015 respondents were directed not ro proceed with departmentai ltroceedings against pe[itioner for charges 2 and 3 which pertain to committing of theft till criminal case is Itnalized. Hos'cvcr, granted libern. to proceed rv tl-r .the disciplinar-_v- r:rsc under lst Article of charge. After thcroughly examining :rii the aspects, the Commandant I Ott, BI\i. TSSP issued ordurs urde D.O. No. 30i2016, datcd 07.o1.2016 imposing pun ishmcnt of Removal from serr.'ice since th e lapse !l,as very scrious i.e., absence from guarci duties whcr-e large Arms and .,\rn -nunition are kept for safe custody. Ir is furrhcr stated that Hon,ble Judicial Ma gistrate of First Clas;s had considered only- the limitecl p,)int of committing treft of live rounds of loaded magazrr e and mentioned th. t lhe investigating officer failed to conduct proper I I 9 investigation and failed to conduct the Panchanana as per the procedure contemplated and in view of the iacunae in the case of prosecution, the Court felt that the prosecution utterly failed to produce cogent and proper evidence against the petitioner in order to prove the ingredient of theft. It was further con[ended that petitioner was acquitted on benefit of doubt and it is no[ clear acquittal whereas in departmental enquiry in lvhich pctitioner lr,as given ampie opportunity all the three charges against petitioner rvas proved. lt was further contended by the 4rh respondent that since all the charges against petitioner were proved in the departmental proceedings, punishment of Re moval from service is imposed on him duly following CCA Rulcs based on the 1"t Article of Charge. 5- In response lo the Counter Afhdavit, petitioner filed reply contending that Order dated 07 .01.2016 of the 4h respondent and the one dated 22.O3.2016 of the 5rh respondent arc unreasonable on the ground of discrimination among delinquents in initiating criminal prosecution and disciplinary proceedings and imposing harsher punrshment of removal from t0 service though petitioner was acquitted from criminzrl case. It was cont€rnded that on 03.OZ.2Ol4, the Assistant Com:randant lodged a ,*'ri -ten report for commission of thelt ar-rd a .':ase s,as registered eLgainst unknor.r'n accused and took up rr.rr.c: tigarion. It lvas furthe r contended that subsequent to tlle interim Order dated 20.11.2015, the 4rh respondent in a hurried mar-ner and prejudiciallri completed enquiry in respect of the 1"r ,a rticle of charge and passed order on 07.O1.2016 removing prtitioner from servicr:. Pctitioner filed Appeal on 2O.O 1.2016 rvhich was rejected bw tlre Appellatc Authority uicle order dated 22.)3.2016 and sinc(: t hc documents and report \.{.as not fir rnished immediateil.'. petitioner could not provide explanatior within time and v.hen subsequcntll. tried, the 4d, respotrdent re.used to receive the sitme. petitioncr contended that lhe 1., Ar-ticle of charge is inter-relarted to theft and when rhe aliegation o1 theft is not proved by the competent criminal Court, the punishntent for Article 1 of c hargr: has no relcvance at all ancl such ,tarsher punishment ,tf Removal from scrvtce is unrcasonable and unsustainable . 'l I t I 1l

6. learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner argued lhat the 4th respondent had exceeded the scope of enquiry and proceedings while passing the Order wherein has taken into consideration Articles 2 and 3 of charge which relate to the alleged theft and imposed harsh punishment on petitioner. The same is evident from counter hled by the 4th respondent u,herein it was specihcally stated that "since all the charges against petitioner are proved in the departmental proceedings, punishment of removal from service is imposed on him duly follou,ing CCA Rules based on the Article of Charge 1' The 4Lh respondent while passing the Order dated 07 'O1 2016 has not obeyed the interim Order passed by the Tribunai in OA' No. 6366 ol 2015 wherein respondents were directed not to proceed with the departmental proceedings against petitioner for chargcs 2 and 3 u'hich pertain to theft tili criminal case is finalizcd. Thc 4th respondent should not have considered Articles 2 and 3 of the charge while proceedings should have timited itseif to Articte 1 of the charge Adrnittedly, no frcsh enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Ofhcer on the 1st Article of charge- It is stated tirat after ciear acquittal in the Criminal I I I I Case onh', petitioner filed the present Wri[ petition agg -ieveci by the impugrLed orders dated 07-Ol-2016 and 22_03 2O15 passed by Responclcnts 4 and 5 respectively. .7. Learncd Senior Counsel arsued that though awarding 6,f punishment is in the domain of emp:o,ver, in judicial rcviet', lhis Court can interlere w.ith punrshmelt which is shockingll disproportionate to gravit-\. of prored misconduct. The 1"t Arr ir:le of charge states that petitione r exhibitr:c.l gross miscondur;t :rncl gross dereliction of dut1, b,v lailing to slcep at Quarte r (iua.-d on night of O2.O7.2014 as Batlalion D:]ty Sub Junior Officer- thereby violated ApSp Manuai standing oider No. 1l(IX), thus riolared Rule (3) of APCS (Conduct) Rules. 1964. APSP Manua Standing Order No. 1 I (lX) srate s as lollolvs *He will sleep rn the guard room at night., Rule 3 ol ApCS (Ccnduct) Rules, 19ti4 stares: (1) Every Government emDlo,vec shall be devoted tc, his duty and shall maintain abscrlute ir teerity, discipline, rnrpartialit-v ancl zr ser.rsc ol proprietv; (2) No ,Government ,:mployee shali behave in a manner u.l.rich is unbecoming of such employee or derogatory to thc prer;trge of Government; (3) No Government employee shall act in a r.ranner ) ) rvhich will place his ofhcial position under any kind of embarrassment. The Learned Senior Counsel argued that petitioner sought oral permission of duty otAcer before going to sleep in his quarter and the same was given by Sri. N.V.A.N. Reddy, RSI. It was further argued that order of the 4th respondent failed to show horv Rule 3 of the APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 was violated. Even assuming that no permission was granted to petitioner to leave the quarter guard, punishment awarded was unreasonable"

8. I-earned Senior Counsel has placed reliance o., Si' Teatart as. tlnion of Indiat u'herein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that question of interlerence and quantum of punishment.has been considered by the Supreme Court in catena of judgments and it was held that if the punishment awarded is disproportionatc to thc gravity of misconduct, it would be arbitrary and thus would violate the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. In the present case, the Disciplinary proceedings w'ere conducted on I Article of charge alone and the punishment awarded for the same is ' (2013) 6 scc 602 1,+ (l disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. In Ranjit Thakur v. Union o.f India2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that, "But the ser,.tence has to suit the offence au) the ofJzrlcler. It should not L,e uindictiue or undulg harsh. lt skoLtld nt be so disproport.ionate to the offence as to shock tlte conscien.ce and amount in, it:;elf to conclusiue euidence of bios. The doctine of proportionat'ity, as port of the concept of judiciai reuietit, tuould. ensure that euen on the ospec\ tuhich is otherutise, uithin the exclusiue prouince of the Court Martial. if the decision of .heCourt euen as tct :;e,ntence is an outrageous defian ce. oi logic, ,hen the sentence utotdd not be immune from conectiott. In the present case, the punishment is so stingentlg dispropotlionate as to call for and jus;ttfy interference. It cannot be allowed ta remoin unconecter) itt judicial reuieu." In V. Rannq.na u. A.p.S,R.T,C.3 &Ors, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considerecl the s,:ope of judicial revir:t, as to the quantum of punishmenr is pennissible only if it is f,tru'rd that it is not commensurate u'irh rhe g: aviiv of the charges a-rd if the Court comes to rhe conclusion th:,t scope 'AtR 1987 sc 2:185 ' AIR 2005 SC .l.r 1 7 t \ t5 of judicial review as to the quantum of punishment is permissible onty if it is found to be 'shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in deltance of logic or moral standarcls." tn a normal coltrse, if punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate, it vvould be appropriate to direct Disciplinary Authority to reconsider rhe penalty imposed' However, in order to shorten the litigation, in exceptional and rare cases, the Court itself can impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. Further, tn B.C. Chdtuntedi tt. ultion o;f Indiaa, the Hon'ble Supreme Court heid that, "if the penalty imposed by an authori[r "shocks the conscience" of the court, it would appropriately mould the relief either directing the authority to reconsider the penalty imposed and in exceptional and rare cases, in order to shorten the litigation itself, impose appropriate punishment w-ith cogent reasons in support thereof. While examining the issue of proportionality, Court can aiso consider the circumstances under which the misconduct was committed. The Court rnay further examine the effect, if the order is set aside or ' AtR 1996 sc 484 l6 t substitut(rd b1. some other penait5r. Horvever. it is onl.. tn very rare cases tiral Court might, to shorlen the lirigation, tl.rink of substitutin;1 its orvn vien as to the quantum of punisl,mcnt in place of pu;elshment ar.l'arded b_v- the Competeni Authority.,, The Learned Senior Counsel argued that in the pi-esent case. the quantum of itunishment imposed for the 1sr Article of <rharge is shockingh, clisproportionate and since petitioner rvho had already corrLpleted 3O years of service as on the date of er.rquLiry and u,ho w,l\llci have retired u,ithin 7 5.ears, shoulci r;ot. have been penali:zed \.\.ith the punishment of removal of sen.jce for a minor miscotrduct of absenting from dut-v for ieq. hol rrs and further since petitioner had already undcrgone ser,,cre tner-rtal agon-y and su:'fered due to removal order ancj on conside: iitg age of petitionc.r, learned Senior Counsel praved thal Wril )erition be allorved a:arl the orders impugned be set aside. g. l-e:arned Special Government pleader Homc Jllervtce) reiterated rh3 conlents of Counter Affidavit and placed r.eliiltce on the Judgenicnt in Writ petition No. 25759 of 20 1g, ,,r,h :rein it u'as held thar, "the opinion formed bv the Tribunal rl aL the respondent is er-rtitled for the benellt o[ a clcan chit though the ( \ 17 Enquiry officer found that the chargcs against him as proved only on the ground that he is acquitted of the criminal charges by the competent court which is not an honourable acquittal' but on account of the witness turned hostile' cannot be judicially sustained. A judiciai exercise of discretion would not be apparent if the reasoning is not in accordance with law'" He argued that since the Article of charges were proved in the enquiry and the same are grave, the Court should dismiss the present petition. circumstances of In view of the rival contentions of learned counsel' 10. the point that arises for consideration is u'hether' in the facts case, proceedings Rc.No:A3/O8y' 126512014 ID O'No:3O/2016 issued bv the 4th respondent being the Disciplinary Authonty imposing the punishment of Removal from Service on petitioncr and order dated 22-O3-2O16 in Proc Rc'No:R/4/App/2016-ROO No:75/2o16 issued by the 5h respondent in rejecting Appeal conirrmingtheorderofthe4threspondentisbad'arbitrary' illega1, misconceived, vindictive and violation of Articles l4' 16 and 2 1 of the Constltution of India' l8 I 1. The admitted facts are that the 4'h re:;pondent initiated dis,:iplinary action against petitroner and pla ced him under sus;p,ension from service under proceedings dated 05.O7 -2O i.4 till conclusion of criminal proceedirrgs and disciplinaq, proceedings. Vide interim order datcd 20.i 1.2015, the Trib ur-riil directed respondents not tc proce,ld rvith departmcnt.al proceedings against petitioner for chargcs 2 and 3 which pertain to committing theft till criminal case is tin.rhzed, horvever, granted liberty to proceed with disciplinarv ca:;c under 1st Article of charge and the said order still subsists. It ,s stated in thc counter that in the departmentai enquirv. trll t're three charges agirinst petitioner were proved and lurther st.,.red tha,. since al1 the charges were proved in the depa:'trnental procccclines,, punishment of removal from sen,ice r,r'as mposed dul-r., fol[611,;619 CCA Rules based on the Article of Charge J .

12. L bare perusal of Order dated O7.01.2O1(; sho\\,s that petirjolrcr rvho was piaced under suspension, failed to slcep at Quarter (iuard on the night of O2.O7.2014 as a Battalion DulJ' SLrb .lrrnior officer and while checking br- the Battalior-r Dutv officr-'r, he u'as found absent from the euarter Gu.rrcl and ) ) l9 on recalling by the Battalion Duty officer he came to the Quarter Guard, thus he violated APSP Manual Standing order No 11(lX) as a Battalion Duty Sub junior officer' Further, he was absented from the most important duties i e' at Quarter Guard where Bell of Arms of all Coys of thrs unit and Central Magazine situated' Thus, he also violated Rule 3 of APCS (Conduct) Rules' 1964 by becoming absent from most important duties' Therefore' he is revoked from suspension and removed from Service from the date of receipt of acknowledging this Order' The Order issued by the 4d' respondent does not provide any reasons as to why such a harsh punishment was imposed on petitioner for absenting from the Quarter guard for few hours on lhe night of O2.O7.2014 and also in the situation when he was called back ancl asked to sleep in the quarter guard which he obeyed as per rhc inslructions of his suPerior' In view of the above stated facts and circumstances 13. and the legal proposition and on perusal of the counter hled by the 4s' respondent, thrs Court is of the considered opinion that under these circumstances, it cannot be said that petitioner 20 committed rn sconduct \trarranting extreme penalt)r of dlsmissal from sen, it:e. As heid in the above referred judgements an{l as per

14. the Judgr:rnr:nt of the Hon'b1e Supreme Court in B.C. Chatunndi's ccrse lr.hich held that, 'if the penaity imp:sed bv an authorit',,' "shocks the conscience" of the court, ii would appropriirteh mould lhe relief either directing rhe auttrorit,v to reconsidcr i h e pe nalt-v imposed and in exceptional a 'rd rare cascs, in c,rdtr to shorten the litigation itself, impose appropriate punishment u.ith cogent reasons in support thereof. While examining the issue of proportionality, Court can also consider th e circumstances under which misconduct u'as committecl. 'i he Court may further examine the effccl, if the orclcr is s(it asidc or substituted by some other.lenalty. Hou'ever, :t is onlf in very rare cases.that the court rrlight. tt) shorten the litigation, think of substituting its own vic rt as to the quanturn ol punishment in place of punishment au'ardcd by the Compet erlt Aulhority', this Court holds that thtr above judgement srluarely applies to the present facts of tl.e case, hence, thc pelaltr. imposed by an authorin' "shocks the I I ZL conscience' of the Court and it would appropriately mould the relief. On perusal of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CC & A) Rules, 1991, penalties for minor misconduct include Censure, rvithholding of promotion, withholding of increments of pay u'ithout cumulative effect, suspension, reduction to a lort'er I t stage in the time scale of pay for a period not exceeding 3 years' Horvever, since petitioner had already undergone severe menlal agony ancl suffered due to removal order and on considering the age of petitioner, this Court is of the opinion nol to impose any further penalty on the said minor misconduct of the 1* Ariicle of Charge.

15. In view of the above, the Wrir Petition is allowed and Order datcd 07 .O1.2016 issued by the 4m respondent imposing the punishment of removal from service on petitioner and order datcd 22-O3 2O16 issued by the Sth respondent in rejecting the Appeal confirming the order of the 4ti' respondent are set aside c I and the respondents are ciirected to reinstate petitioner into service as Head Constable with all consequential service benefits including arrears of salary with effect from 05-O7-2014 till his date of retirement ort 3|-O7'2O2O within a period of two I I 22 6 months fro:r.r the date of receipt of this order and comnrunicale the decisior t6 pet,itioner. No costs. 16 C)onscquently, the misceilaneous Applicar ions, if an_v shall st,and closed. That Rule Nisi has been absolute as above. Witness the Hon'ble the Chief Justice ALOK ARADHE, on this Thursday, the Twentieth day of February, Two Thousand and Twenty Five. //TRUE COPYII SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 1\r de CTION OFFICER The Principal Siecretary, Home Department Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad The Director General of Police Telangana State Lakdikapool, Flyderabad. The Additional Director General of Police, Telangana State Special police Battalion, Hyderabad. The Commarrdant, 1Oth Battalion Telangana State Special Police Beechupallyl Jogulamba Gadwal District. The lnspector - General of Police and Appellate Authority, Telangana State Special Police, Battalions, Hyderabad. Two CCs to GF, FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] One CC to Sttl C.DAMODAR REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI Two CD Copier; To 1 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 SA BS k t t HIGH COURT DATED:2UA212025 ORDER WP.No.6160 of 2019 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. t\ k 6l c o () A!Ht1 (' o^ o j ( f j I a t' I 2 s riP 2tJz5 a. r.a' iu€-! :--=--=-