High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue a wrtt' order or direction more in the nature of lvlandamus declaring the impugned C No 43146-1 IOEI2OOS' D O No I'1 33/2010' dated 24-5-2010 issued by the Superintendent of Police' Nalgonda and the orders passed in appeal in R O No 4712016' Rc No 123tDl -2tHRt201 7 ' dated 27 -1-2017 issued by the 3rd respondent communicated to the petitioner in C No' 43/46-'1/Appea l-10-1112010-16' D O.No 25212017 ' daled 8-2-2017 by the 1st respondent as being illegal' arbitrary' unjust vrolative of Articles 14 and 16 of the constrtution of rndia and consequentry rerease the increments withheld from the petitioner with all cc,nsequentiar benefits incrudrng treating re suspension period as on duty Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.TIRUPATHI GOUD Counsel for the Res,pondents: AGp, REp. Gp FOR SERV|CI:S (HOME) The Court made the following: ORDER i i : : 3 I I ; : t I I I l 3 tr.t, r, 2 te.t. .I:to L 7 HON,BLE SRT JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION N o.2392C o F 2017 ORDER: The instant writ petition is f iled to grant the following relief: "..toissueawrit,orrferordircctionmorcinthenatureof MandamusdeclarirrgtlreimpugpedC.No.a3/A6J/oE/2008, D.O.No.1-I33/ 2010, clatetl 24-05 2010 issued by Superintendent of Policc' Nalgonda ancl the orders p;rssed in appeal in R.O No47/2016' RcNo'123/D1 -7/ lIRlzOl7 ' dated 27.0'1.2077 issued b,v the 3'd respontl"''t1' 6666unicated tothepetitionersinC.No.'l3lA6ll/Appcal-Io'1]I/2010.16, D.o.No.252/2017date<]o8.o2.2o17bythe1'trcspclndent,as being illegal, arbitrary' unjust' violative of Articies 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently' rclease the increment withhelcl from the petitioners w'ith all consequcntial benefits including beating the suspension period as on duty'" 2. The brief (acts of the case are that Petitioners' who are Armed AssiStant sub-lnspectors, were placed under suspension dated 01 08'2008 for by the 1't respondent oidr Proceedings neglecting duty and misconduct in letting off Under Trial Prisoners viz, Shaik Nagur VaIi and Shaik Hussain on 01'08 2008 in the limits of Chityal Police Station' while escorting them from .- \ 4 lt ii \o 2.t ))/1r;:t) 1. Centr.rl Jail, Rajjmunclri to ludicial Magisrrak, of First Class Court, [larrannapet and later, giving a false comp laint at Chityat P.S and lhcreby exhibiting lack of integrity ancl conduct unbecornintl of a Government servant in violahcn of Rule 3 of z\nclhra l,raclcsh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (for short, 'Rules, 1961'). Subsequently, a charge was framr:d against the. petitioners on 03.10.200g and petitioners have filed reply to the sairl cha rgt, mt mo and consequently, the Sub_Divisional police Off icer, Bho,-rgir was appointed as Inquiry Offic,:r to conc{uct inquir_r.' antl bv following due procedure, the S ub_Divisional Police Officer., t,ide his Minutes in C.No.4/OE /SDpO_B/200g, claiecl 27.03.2010 holding that the charge against tlre petiiioners n,as provcd, n.hich is a gross negligence ancl violation of Rule J of the Rules, 1964 ancl the 1.t respondent by encloshg r copy of the rc'port of Inquiry Officer, issued Memo No.43/A6_1/O E/2OOg, da tc.tl 08.04.2010 clirecting the pefitioners to submit their explana tions tjrereon.

3. Ihe pet tioncrs submittecl their explanations stating that they lt e re not prorricled with weapons and a proper vehicle, and as a result, clespite exercising clue diligence, they we_.e unable to c prevent the escape of the under ffial prisoners and requcsted to exonerate them from the charges by dropping the disciplinary proceedings initiated against them The 1't respondent' af ter perusing the enquiry report and the explanation offered by the petitioners, has imposed punishment of PPI for 1$'s years with effect on future increments and pension' for the misconduct and the suspension period from 03'08'2008 to 19'02 2009 is directed to bc treated as'not on dutY'- have challengecl the orclers resPon

4. Suhsequentlv' Petitioners zride C.No 43 I A6'1/OEI2008' passed bY the 1't resPondent D.O.No.1133/2010 dated 24'05'2070 in an appeal before the 4tL dent herein aide R'O'No 4712016 (Rc'No 123lD1-2l llRl2[17) dated 27'01'2017 and th" 4tn respondent having perused the inquiry report and also the orders passed by the 1't respondent af ter following due procedure has conJirmed the orders passed by the 1't respondent and challenging the said orders passed by the 1't respondent as confirmed' in the appeal by the 4th resPondent' petitioners filed the instant writ petition' 5. Heard Mr' A'Tirupathi Goud' learned counsel for petitioners and the Iearned Assistant Government Pleader ' I I I I I l : I I l ! I |. I I I I 6 t,l' \,o ,.: ):t).1 :t)i: representing thc, Iearnccl Government pleadr:r for Services (Flomr') irppearing for respondents 6 fhr: rnerin cl-rallenge in this writ petition is that the Enquiry Officer h,rs not examinecl the reply filed by thc petitioners ir.r proper pe|spective and that the 1,t respor dent without application of his independent mind has imposed the punishment of Irlrl for two year-s with effect on fuhrre increments and pe,sion r,r.hich is higl_rly excessive and arbiLra ry anci the 4rl, resporrdent-.rppellate authority has dismissed the R.O.No .t7l20 16 (Rc. No. 123 / D1 _2/ HR / 2017), t),ate d mechanicallv rvithout dny proper redsoning. Appeal t,itle

27.07.2017 7 It is the contention of the petitioners that the 1st responclent failed to apprrr:iate the fact that the charged officers were unable to Prevent the escape of the under trial prlsoners, a; they were not provided rvith w,eapons or a vehicle and that thr, lst 3p1l 4rrr respondents rvithout properly appreciating the facts, ()nly basing on the report of the Inquiry Officer, had imposed the p,unishment of PPI for tlt,o _y,3n1s with effec t on future incremenls ar <,1 pension, and beated thri.suspension periocl trom 03.0g.200g to 19.02.2009 a' 7 rtlj 'i. :.J9."[:'1t as'not on duty' and that the punishment awardeii is eicessilr'e ri-t nature 8- Per contTa, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Government Pleader for Services (Home) subrnitted that the petitioners have not taken due care in performing their duties and they have derelicted their duties' r.t,hich resulted in the escape of dangerous dacoit-prisoners and that duty of the charged officers should have performed with utmost care and caution and the charged officers have not taken proPer care, as such' the 1* respondent had followed due proceclure o[ law and imposed punishment basing on the enquiry report holding that the charged officers have committed gross negligence and dereliction of duties under Rule 3 of the Rules' 1964. The learned Assistant Govemment Pleader further submitted that the appeal was filed after a lapse of seven years/ as the orcler of punishment was passed on 25'04'2010 and the appeal wasfiledonlyintheyear20lTandnow'afterlapseofmuchtime' the prescnt writ petition has been filed and the same is devoid of merits and petitioners have not made out any case so as to grant any relief, much less the punishment imposed is not excessive 8 trP ).2-t ))(),l zrtt7 and on p.rr l,ith the charge memos issued to thenr and therefore. interference of this C_-o u rt, in respect of the gr; ve misconduct committed b1. the pe'titioners, is not warrantec and the writ petition i-. Lable to be dismisseci_ -

9. This (lourt lras gor-rc into the material placec on record ancj the orders rassed by the 1,t rcspondent in C.No.43/ A6_7 / OE/ 2008, D.O.Nio.1133/2010 clarecl 24.05.20j0 and al:;o the enquiry report of the Sub-Divisional lrolice Officer, Bhon5jr, along with the ordr:r, dated 27 .01.201 7 passecl by the 4u, res;,onclent in the appeal filecl bv the pc.titioners. As seen from the ctLarges levelled against thr: petiLioners, the enquiry was cohducred by giving proper opportunity to the petitioners by following the principles of Nafural Jrrstice and also due procedure conterrLplated under the Rules, 1954 and the conclusion arrived by the Inquiry Officer that the petitioners guilty of misconrluct in violatio r of Rule 3 of the Rules, 19rr4 ancl the disciptinary authority is the sole judge of thc facts . ti-i !] li{ji-. [lre appcai ;.,ir:sen[cr.l L ic .\ppi-llrt. authority has co-extensive power to re_appreciate evidence or nature of prrrishmeni and the appellate authority hirs passed the order bv giving cogent reasons anci this Court without anv i5 I i ', I \{P N. \tQo ol lt)t t hesitation holds that the 1't responrlent was iustified in holding out that the charged off icers have committed misconduct of their dutics in contravention to Rule 3 of the Rules' 1964 and that the charged officers have not acted with due diligence and care' lhci'i'i.i th,' i Il' Pf i<(\lrt'IS' r'r'ho are dangerous tlac<--its' escapetl from the custocly and that the adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be canvassed before this Hon ble Court' 10. After going tl-rrough the rival submissions of either sides' this Court having herd that the orders passe, by the 1't responclent is iustif ied ancl proper and the charged of ficers have committed misconduct in violation of Rule 3 of the Rules' 1964 and as there were no other disciplinary proceedings initiated .,r.,,ri,.<t tl'e t-r'tiiiorrers either Prior to the issttance o{ the impugned. charge memo or subsequent to the orders passed by the 1,t respondent tluring the course of their employment' 11 . Tlre only question that falls for consideration bet'ote this Court is toltethe r tle punislunent unposed of PPI for two years uith effect on future itcretnents atril pension' is excessioe anil whether the same is proportionate to the nrisconduct on the part of the chargeil officets ? \\ - LO tt1, no 2.)sla al2trt7

72. A r:atena of the judgments oi the Flor_r,ble Supreme Court and this Hon'ble Court held that if thc punishn,ent imposed is too clisprop ortionate to the gravit-y- of the misconcluct proved and it shocks the juclicial conscience, the penalti:s/punishment imposed c'ar-r be interfered with. I'his principre has been reiteratecl right from B.C.Chafurvedi v. Union of Indi;rr, and recent judgmcnt irr General Manager personnel, Syndir:ate Bank and ors Vs B.S.l{.prasad2 and othcr sirnilar judgments In the instant case takinl; into account of the charges and also tle fact that the petitioners 1r€, not involr.ecl in other disciplinary charges throughout their entire length of servicc, the punishment imposed i.e., punishment of pI,I for two years vzith effect on fufure incrernents and pension, is founcl to be r,xcessive ancl needs modrfi:ation to a lesser punishment. Norma.ly this Court would have directed the disciplinary authority tc, modify the puniSirment tc a lesser punishmer-rt frorn the one inrposed by it, but clue to the, penclency of the, matter Ior a long time and also in view of the fa,:t that the chargecl officers retirc.d long back and as such, this Court cleems it proper to mo<-lify the punislrment of ppl ' (1995) a) SCC 74! ' (2025) 3 SCC ()0 1l punishment with two vears with e{fect on future punishment and pension to punishment to that of PPI punishffient with tzoo years without artrl cunu atiae et'fect antl without aty eff ect on Perrsion' but without any monetary benefits' ln view of the fact that the authotties have revoked the susPension of the petitioners and imposed punishment' the suspension period from 03'08'2008 to 1g.Oz.z09gas not on duty is also kept intact' but however such period lrray be coutrtetl for pension if not counted'

13. With the aforesaid observatrons' alowed. There shall be no order as to costs' this Writ Petition is PartlY Miscellaneous aPPlications' pending if ally, shall stand l\ closed. That Rule Nisi has te SRI APAR ESH KU MAR mber, the Twelfth Day of SePte The Hon'b e Absolu SINGH' ove witness te as ab ustice on fJ The Ch d Twenty Five. Two Thousan SD I.P. PONNA K T REG S ISTAN this Friday' RISHNA ISTRAR I'TRUE COPY'I SECTION OF FICER CHALAPATHI RAO one Fair coPY to the Hon'b (For His te SRI JUS LordshiP TICE SUDDA s Kind Perus al) To, onda, Nalg apet, Surya Hy der ent of P ent of P ector Ge eneral olice' Nalg erintend SUry olice, erintend I of Police, lnsP orG al SecretarY Home DePartment' PrinclP Tela ngana lnsPectcr RCoP res Under Se cretarY, Unlon of lndia ' Affalrs, Nevr Del l Telangana Advoca ecretarY, Buildinq s. Hvde rabad The SUP 1 The SUP 2 The DeP 4 The Dir Hvderab 5 The 6. 11 L 7 The 8 The .S a District- District d Rang e, Hyderabad Generalof Police, Telangana' Hyderabad' State of Secretariat' Ministry of Law' tes Association ' Justice and ComPanY Library' High Court I t I I i 1 .-*a& 7 ?, !.i: ?%:" iTt+'F"'Jxrx,gp!^D rgr/.oc.ate ropuql .. Telangana at tiydeia;adiollr]'"t" (HolvF) Hrgh ci>urt for the state of .1 1.Turo CD Copies BSR BS -..Jri HIGH COURT DATED: 1210912025 I ORDER WP.No.23920 of 2017 [ 7 [[I 295 PARTLY ALLOII/ING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT GOSTS /,b 7 /1 ,