High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therdwith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned dismissal order vide Proc. C. No O lPRlN2O11-18, R.O.O.No.42112018, dated 30-'1 1-2018 issued by the Deputy lnspector of Police, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar as being illegal and struck down the same in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in Criminal Appeal No. Crl.A.No.3112 of 2018 striking down the criminal charge against the petitioner and consequently hold that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement to duty with all consequential and attendant benefits including treating the entire period of suspension and the consequential out of duty period in view of dismissal from service, pay and allowances, increments and promotion etc. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under .iection 151 CPC praying that in the circumst:rnces stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be plr-'ased to direct the respondents to ccrsider the case of the petitioner for reinstatenlent to duty by passing appropriate orders on the representation of the petilione dated 17-10- 2023 and 27 -9-2024 f,rrthwith, pending disposal of the'above Writ Pctition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A. TIRUPATHI GOUD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO I I WRIT PETITION No.93O8 of 2025 ORDER: . Heard Sri A. Tirupathi Goud, Iearned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents. Perused the record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed as a Police Constable (Civil) No.23O7 with effect from 02.01.1992 and he rendered unblemished record of service throughout till he was placed under suspension vide C.No.27 /A5lPR/201 1, D.O.No.SOS/2O11, dated 27.O4.2O11 with effect from 15-4 2011 on the ground that the ACB officials booked a criminal case against the petitioner and others vide Cr.No.O5/ACB-KNR/2011 in accepting an amolrnt of Rs.1S,OOO/- as bribe from one Jakkula Saraiah for doing official favour for not to impose fine and not to book any case against Auto trailers and other vehicles carrying the sheep and goats from-Arnakonda village to Choppadandi for selling and purchasing them in the market. 2(i) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that vide judgment dated 20.11.2018 in C.C.No.75 of 2015, the !-\ --_- ,r 2 petitioner was rientenced to suffer simple imprisonm ent for a period of six mrnths and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/ n view of the aJoresaid . udgment, the petitioner was dismis sed from service on thr ground that he was were convicteri on the criminal chargt: The petitioner had cha-llenged the sz,rd orders of the Trial cor-.rt before this Court in Criminal Appea No.3112 of 2O18 and ,-his Court was pleased to render Common Judgment in Crl.A.No. 3112 of 20 18 along u,ith 3104 rnd 3105 of 2O18 on 03.10.2023 holding that there is no evi,lence on record before he Trial Court, the question of convi:ting the accused in a c "Lminal trial is not sustainable in the e ve of law and consequer tly allowed the Criminal Appeals and set-aside the punishment imposed by the Trial Court. After alkrwing the criminal apperrl, the petitioner made a represent ltion on 27 .O9 .2024 ser:king reinstatement the petitioner intr, service, but no action has been taken by the respondents 2 (ii) Learned cotrnsel for the petitioner subrnits that the petitioner is ,: ntitled for reinstatement in vieu, of Memo No.2598/Ser.Cl65-2 dated 25.09.65 as it was clarifieC that if, however, a Go'r,:rnment employee is removed or disr: rissed or reduced in ran<, solely on the ground of conduct u'l-ri:h led to 1 3 his conviction on a criminal charge, without complying with the requirements of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India or Rule 19(2) of the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules and if his. conviction is eventually set aside by the appellate court, or by the High Court, in revision, then the order of removal, , dismissal or reduction in rank, as the case may be, cannot stald and that order will have to be reviewed.

3. On the other hand, learned Government pleader on instructions submits that the charges against petitioner were proved and conviction also taken place.

4. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned cotrnsel for respective parties, Lhough the trial Court convicted the petitioner in C.C.No.75 of 2O15 on 2O.11-2OI8, but the sarne was challenged in appeal, and this Court allowed the Crl. Appeal on 03.1O.2O23. So, without going into the merits of the case, the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 27.09-2024 along wittr above said CCA Rules and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of eight (OB) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order I I I 4

5. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be nr order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pcnding, if any, in this Writ Petiticrr, sha,ll stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/-P. PADMANABHA REDDY 0EPU-rY REGTSTRAR SEC TION OFFICER l I Il!i:i:fijf3!"ju Home Department, secretariat, state or rerangana, General and lnspector General of Police, state or Tetangana, ' Ii3i53:5"r 3. The Superinterrdent of police,.Raj,nna Sircilla District, Sircilla. 4 rhe Deputv tnspector Gg.nglrt 5. One CC to' SriA. Tiruoathi6r;, A;;;;t"'idfdaj 6 Two CCs to G ) for Hbme. Hight"r;if", tl#Eia"u'or Tetanga ra, at 7. Two CD Copies, Hyderabad [OL'--l riiiil;rs;iii;g;. Karimnagar "r'p"ii"e, To, , TJ BS HIGH COURT I I DATED:0310412025 c 22 nrt. 6 'B 6 o iSlral ct ti-rt) ,t ORDER WP.No.9308 o'f 2025 j o_ I t DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS {r t {