High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased lo issue a writ or order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders passed in (a) DO No. 4159 dated 19.07.2014 by the first respondent (b) D.Dis. No.232lT-212014 dated 05.05.2015 by the second respondent and (c) Memo No. 8094/ Ser.ll/A1/2015 Home(Ser-ll) Department dated 25.O1 .20'16 by the third respondent as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, passed without any evidence and contrary to the circulars issued by the government and the judgement of the Honble Supreme Court and set aside the same and consequentially direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits like payment of arrears of salary, release of increments, pay fixation and seniority, promotion etc., and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.V.S.S.S.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES (HOME) The Court made the following: ORDER That Rule Nisi has made Absolute as above witness HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.10297 of 2017 ORDER: On the complaint filed by a person named P.Venu Madhav alleging that the petitioner (a Head Constable in the respondent- Department), along with another Police Constable, extorted an amount of Rs. 1,200/- from him at Hussain Sagar lake/Tank Bund on I I .01 .2000, a case was registered in Crime No.26 of 2000 for the ofll:nce punishable under Section 384 IPC of Saifabad Police Station. The Police, after investigation, filed charge sheet before the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (for short, 'the trial Court'), and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.146 of 2000. On the departmental front, in view of registration of crime, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide Order dal.ed 03.02.2000, and a charge memo was issued by the I't respondent-C cmm issioner of Police on 08.09.2000 alleging violation of Rule 3 of r[ndhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The trial Court acquitted the petitioner by Judgment dated 04.05.200 1 . The petitioner was thereafter reinstate'd by the 1 't respondent vide Proceedings dated 24.1 l.20Ol. Though reinstated, as the departmental proceedings were still under process, the petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge memo dated 08.09.2000, however, an Assistant Commisr;ioner of Police was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who conductecl enquiry and submitted report on 10.07.2010. Thereafter, the 1't respondent issued a charge memo in Sept/Oct 2010 directing the petitioner: to submit his explanation/objections to the enquiry report, and the petitioner 2 wp 10291 _2017 N8(,.' submitted his explanation in Oct 2013; pursuant to which, the l't respondent passed Orders dated 19.07.2014 removing the petitioner from service. Petitioner filed an appeal before the 2"d respondent- Director General of Police, and the 2nd respondent modified the punishment to that of Compulsory Retirement vide Order dated 05.05.2015. The review petition filed before the 3'd respondent was rejected by order dated 25.01.2016. Alleging that there is unexplained inordinate delay of 14 years in concluding the departmental proceedings, and though he was acquitted in criminal case in respect of very same allegations, he was removed from service in departmental proceedings; and that the complainant was not examined in the departmental proceedings, and only PW-2 (Sub Inspector) was examined who testified only about the contents of the complaint; and that there is inconsistency in the version of PW-3 (Police Constable of Patrol Jeep on 11.01.2000) who stated that the petitioner and other constable fled the scene on a motorcycle, whereas the complainant's version was that on noticing the Patrol Jeep the petitioner and other constable fled the scene, by leaving the motorcycle; and that there is discrimination shown by the disciplinary authority in imposing the punishment, as the petitioner was removed from service (later compulsorily retired in appeal) whereas the other constable was imposed 5%o cut in pension for three years, which is a lesser punishment; and therefore the impugned order of removal dated 19.07.2014, and the subsequent orders (i.e., the appellate authority order dated 05.05.2015, and the review authority order dated 25.01.2016 ) are arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal, and hence prays for a writ of mandamus directing reinstatement of petitioner with all consequential benefits. 7 3 \9p 10297 _2O7-l NAK, ]

2. Heard Mr. PVSSS Rama Rao, leamed counsel for the petitioner; and leamed Govemment Pleader for services (Home). Perused the record.

3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner, making sub missions on the lines of writ affidavit, relies on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court I in Rajendra Yadav vs. State of Madhya Pradeshr, C'ommissioner of Police, Delhi vs.Jai Bhagwan2.

4. Learned Govemment Pleader justifies the impuplned order dated

19.07.2014, and subsequent modification order in appeal, and contends that the disciplinary authority has followed due process of larv, and though the petitioner was removed from service, his r,:quest in appeal was considered on humanitarian grounds and the y>unishment was modified to "compulsory retirement" and therefore there is no illegaliq, in the impugned Orders passed by the respondent authorities, warranting interlerence by th is Court.

5. At the outset, it may be noted that the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal proceedings stand on a different foo:ing, in that the standard of proof of "beyond reasonable doubt" being the focus in criminal proceedings, whereas the constituting or otherwise of misconduct as per Service Rules in view of involvement in crime is the focus in disciplinary proceedings. Viewed in this context, it may be noted that in the aftermath of registration of criminal r:ase against the petitioner, on the allegation of extortion of money of Rs.1,200/- from 1 (2013) 3 scc 73 , (2011) 6 sCC 376 4 wp 70297 _2017 N8K, J the complainant on I l.0l .2000, a charge memo was issued by the Disciplinary Authority on 08.09.2000 (after a gap of 8 months), and the petitioner submitted his explanation. [n the criminal proceedings, the trial Court acquitted the petitioner on 04.05.2001.

6. Admittedly, the complainant was not exarnined by the enquiry offrcer in the disciplinary proceedings thereby the opportunity ofcross- examining him was not available to the petitioner. It is relevant at this juncture to note that in Jai Bhagwan (supra), the complainant therein was one Mrs. Ranjana Kapoor, who was not examined in the departmental proceedings relating to alleged receipt of illegal gratification of Rs.l00/- by the delinquent official/petitioner therein. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "15. In the present case, although there is some evidence that an amount of { 100 was returned by the respondent to the complainant but there is no such direct and reliable evidence produced by the appellants in the departmental proceedings which could clearly prove and estqblish that the respondent demanded and received an illegal gratification of the said denomination. It seems that the proof of taking such illegal gratification has been drawn from the evidence of returning of {100 to the complainant by.oy of a link-up.

16. It also seems quite impracticable to presume that in the presence of so many passengers, the respondent could have extorted money. The allegation of 7 5 wp_10297 2017 NBK. ] receiving { 100 as illegal gratification is fromed on suspicious and possibilities while trying to link i,t up with the instance of returning back of { 100/- by the re.spondent to the complainant. There are many other shor'fcomings in the entire investigation and the enquiry like the statement of Mrs Raniana Kapoor was not recorded by the Inspector and the Inspector also did not take down in writing and also attest the complaint made by her. The statement of S.P. Narang was also not recorded by the Inspector nor did the Inspector seize { I00/- ,note nor noted down its number. Mr. Narang was olso not exomined during the course of departmentai proceedings. Non-eramination of the complainanl and P.S. Narang during the departmental proceeding has denied the respondent of his right of cross-examination and lhus caused violation of Rule 16(iii) oI the Delhi Police (F & A) Rules, 1980.

17. In the absence of such a .definite/clear supporting the case of the appellants it is dfficult to draw a finding of taking illegal gratification by the retpondent from the complainant. Therefore, as rightly hetd by the High Court the present case is a case of no evide,nce. "

7. Further, in Rajendra Yadav (supra), the Hon' ble Supreme Court held as follows: "9. The doctrine of equality applies to all who are equally placed; even among persons who are found 6 wp 10)97 )O11 NBK, ] guilty. The persons who have been found guilQ can also claim equaltty of treatment, f they can establish discrimination while imposing punishment when all of them are involved in the same incident. Parity among co- delinquents has also to be maintained when punishment is being imposed. Punishment should not be disproportionate while comparing the involvement of co- delinquents who are parties to the same transaction or incident. The disciplinary authority cannot impose punishment which ,s disproportionate i.e. lesser punishment for serious offinces and stringent punishment for lesser offences. I l. In Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah caser the workman was dismissed from service for proved misconduct. However, few other worhnen, against whom there were identical allegations, were allowed to avail of the benefit of voluntary retirement scheme. In such circumstances, this Court directed that the workman also be treated on the same footing and be given the beneJit of voluntary retirement from service from the month on which the others were given the benefit.

12. We are of the view that the principle laid down in the abovementioned iudgments would also apply to the facts of the present case. We have already indicated that 3l99al2 SCC 4o7: 1998 SCC (L&S) s57 7 wp 10297 2AD NBK, J the action of the disciplinary authority imposing a comparatively lighter punishment, on the co_clelinquent Arjun Pathak and at the same time, harsher ptmishment on the appellant cannot be permitted in law, since they were all involved in the same incident. Conseqr,tently, we are inclined to allow the appeal by setting aside the punishment of dismissal from service impose,l on the appellant and order that he be reinstated in service forthwith. The appellant is, therefore, to be reinstated from the date on which Arjun pathak was reinstatecl and be given all consequential benefits as were given to Arjun Pathak. Ordered accordingly. However, there vill be no order as to costs "

8. In the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in Jai Bhagwan (supra), and Rajendra yadav (supra), it is to be noted that, in the instant case, the complainant (Mr. Venu Madhav) was not examined by the enquiry officer/disciplinary authority. However, the order dated 19.07.2014 of the l't respondeht removing the petitioner from service states that the o.E. was conducted in the ,cresence of the petitioner and the I.A had also given him opportunity to cross examine the witness and also to produce defence witness/documents, but he (i.e., the petitioner) did not present evidence to disprove the charge. 9- It is to be noted that the maker of the allegations/ c,cmprainant has not testified before the enquiry officer about the alleged extortion of \ \ 8 wp 10291-2017 NBK, ] money, and it is not for the petitioner to secure the presence of complainant. The petitioner may seek summoning of witnesses to prove his innocence, but he cannot be faulted for the non_appearance of complainant before the enquiry officer. When it is the specific contention of the petitioner that the complainant has not deposed before the enquiry officer, and there being no contra material rebufting that contention, it cannot be said by the l.t respondent that the petitioner was given the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, when the primary witness/comprainant itself was not examined by the enquiry officer. The evidence of other witnesses (pW_2 or pW_3), though maybe supportive, cannot substitute the evidence of complainant, to enable the l,t respondent to conclude that the a,eged act of the petitioner constirures the misconduct necessitating imposition of punishment of removar from service' Further, it is a matter of record that the co-delinquent is said to have been given the punishment of five percent cut in pension for a period of three years. thereby it is a clear discrimination against the petitioner, who is involved in the same offence, while lmpostng punishment under Service Rules. I0. In that view of the matter, the impugned Order dated 19.07.2014 ofthe I't respondent, and the subsequent orders dated 05.05.20r5, and 25.01.2016 (of the appellate and reviewing authority), imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner, are set aside, being discriminatory. The petitioner shall undergo same punishment as was imposed on co-derinquent in this case. It is made clear that in case the petitioner has not attained the age of superannuation, he sha, be reinstated. He shall not claim back wages for the period he has been out t , 9 wp _70297 _ZOtl N8K, J was imposed on co-delinquent in this case. It is made clear that in case the petitioner has not attained the age of superannuation, he shall be reinstated. He shall not claim back wages for the period he has been out I of employment due to disciplinaryicriminal proceedings. and he shall be entitled to notional benefits only. In case he is retired, the terminal benefits shall be paid by taking into account the notional benefits. \\ I 1. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the e:xtent as above. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. The Hon'ble SRI SUJOY PAUL, The Acting Chief Justice on this Thursday' the Twentieth Day of February, Two Thousand and Twenty Five. //TRUE COPY// SD/-P. PONNA KRISHNA ISTANT REGISTRAR \ SECTION OFFICER ._=- To,

1. The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, Hyderabad. 2. The Director General of Police, Telangana, Hyderabad. 3. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

4. One CC to SRI P.V.S.S.S.RAMA RAO Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES (HOME), High CoJrt for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD Copids BSR LS S HIGH COURT DATED:20102t2025 I /,,, I r: ifa,- \- ($ c) ..t g + MO JlJl'l 2 €sp.", r -., o =:-::i---l ORDER WP.No.10297 ot 2017 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS d Lw tl