B Srinivasa Rao v. 1. The Commandant

Order

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.1O745 oF 2023 Heard Sri D.Balakishan Rao, tearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services Home appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2 The Detitioner aooroache the Court seekinq oraver as under: "...to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularty one in the nature of Writ of Mandaus declaring the impugned Rc.No. R1/167/t9/2or9-21, HOO No. 325/2O2t, dated 8-9- 2021 issued by the 2nd respondent and its connected Rc.No. 898/A5/Major PR/20L9-21, D.O.No. L2lO/2O2t dated 15-9-2021 issued by the 1st respondent and the orders issued by the 3rd respondent vide Proc.Rc.No. 279 lf U2022, dated 18-10-2022 as being unjust, illegal and d ispro portionate to the charge framed against the petitioner and consequently set-aside the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner to duty with all consequential and attendant benefits and pass such other order... " 3 The case of the oetitioner in brief as oer the averments made in the affidavit filed bv the oetitioner in suDoort of t e Dresent Writ Petiti on is as under:- The petitioner was appointed as constable and promoted A.S.I in 2018. On 26.0L.20t9 a charge memo z SN, J Rc.No.B9B/A6/Major PR/2019 against the petitioner was issued with the charge that the petitioner had tampered with the Bhadratha Nomination form by changing the name of his wife from B.Koteswari to B.Sunitha, however the above said charge memo was cancelled on 11.09.2019. It is further the case of the petitioner that 2'd respondent again issued a charge memo dated 24.t0'2019 with the charges that the petitioner married another woman when his wife is alive

and the petitioner tampered with the Bhadratha Nomination form by changing his wife name from B'Koteswari to B'Sunitha' Thereafter the petitioner submitted his explanation on 19.O2.2020 stating that petitioner has performed his 2nd marriage with the consent of his first wife and her father as the 1tt wife is issue-less, however, Petitioner was dismissed from service by the 2nd respondent on the ground that the charges are held proved. It the further the case of Petitioner that the petitioner made representation to Government to accord post facto permission for his second marriage with Smt. Suneetha, when his first wife was found unfit for procreation of children. The Government r.1 3 SN, J thereupon issued Memo. No. 1236(p)/Ser.It/AZ/2O2L, dated 31.12.2021 requesting the 3rd respondent to examine the matter and furnish a detailed report along with O.E. records along with Proforma particulars etc., to Government, for taking further necessary action in the matter. But shockingly 3..d respondent rejected the above representation styling it as appeal thereby rejecting the petitioner,s right to seek pardon from the government. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner preferred the present writ petition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD. the petitioner, dated 18.11.2021 ad ressed to the tate Government Telano naS tate, (HomeMi ister, Hvd rabad) is extract hereu nder:- "I humbly inform the Govt that this representation is not to be treated as an appeal under Rule 33 of TSC (CCA) Rules, 1991 against the penalty of Dismissal from serviie. In this Representation, I am praying the Govt to accord post facto permission for my second marriage with Smt. Suneetha, when my first wiFe was found unfit for procreation of children. There is only administrative lapse on my part. By relaxing the provisions, contained in Rule 25 of TCS (conduct) Rules 1964 by exercising their inherent powers 4 SN, J conferred under Rule 31 of state and subordinate servlce Rules, 1996, my second marriage can be validated' By relaxation of provisions of Rule 25 of conduct Rules, the misconduct oi second marriage can be obliterated' The penalty of Dismissal will lose its operative power automaticallY. There is n6 culpable mind for me to violate the Rule 25 of conduct Rules. Under compelling circumstances, I married Smt. Suneetha as second wife while my first wife is alive with unsound mind and unsound health, who cannot procreate children. Now, I have 5 teen aged children, 2 wives, parents who are dependent on me foi survival. I belong to ST community wiihout any property. After dismissal from service, I am not getting any income. I am not in a position, to provide food to all dependents. In the extra ordinary circumstances. I humbly pray the Govt to place my case on separate footing and save me, my five chiidren two wives and my parents by according post-facto fermission for contracting second marriage while my first wife is alive, who is not fit for family life and save all poor family members" (B) . The r ce e No.. 2A De 6 P Ser- I A Gov nme Ho s R.II De d d .L2 2L e hereu nder: - "A copy of the reference cited is herewith communicated to ti'ru-oii".tor, General of Police, Telangana State, Hyderabad unO n" is requested to examine the matter and furnish a O"trif"a report along with O'E' records and proforma ;;,1,;;i".t etc., to !he Go,e'nr.nent, for taking further necessary action in the matter"' ) {-) 5 SN, J (c). Th ord r tmouqned Rc. 0.2191TLI20 22, d1 .10. 2 Di Poltce, Telano ana State. Hvd rabad is extra d hereu nder: - "Sri B. Srinivasa Rao, ex ARSI-362 of 15rh Bin, TSSP was fgqAeO up a charge under Rute 20 of TSCS 1Cian1 Aules, 1991 for the following delinquency: Charge-1:That Sri. B.Srinivasa Rao, ARSI-362(U/s) of 15th Bn, TSSP had married another lady by name'sunita when his first wife Smt Koteshwari was living. As per Rule 25 oF conduct Rules no Government employee who has a wife living shall contract another marriage without obtaining the permission of the Government notwithstanding that such subsequent marriage is permissible under the iersonal law for the time being applicable to him. Charge 2: That B. Srinivasa Rao, ARSI 362 (U/s) of 15th Bn, TSSP Sathupally, while working in 15th Bn, Office as Assistant in A4 leave section from 29_12_2014 to 31_01_ 2019 has.taken advantage and changed the photograph of nominee besides tampering the name in ti-re Bhadratha nomination form as Smt Sunitha in place of his wife Smt B. Koteshwari and he changed his mother,s name also',.

2..He acknowledged the article of charge on 01_11_2019 and submitted his written explanation dt 0g-11_2019 in which he denied the charges framed against him 3. Sri M. Jaya Raju, Addl. Commandant, 4th Bn, TSSp :onducjed the Oral Inquiry and submitted his findings vide letter C.No.2762/A5/2O2O dt 2}-t2-2}tg holding the Article of charges levelled against as proved.

4. Agreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Authority, a copy of findings of Inquiry Officer has been communicated to the charged officer and directed him to submit his final written statement of defence within 15 days vide this office memo dated 16-03-2020. He submitted a final written statement oF defence on 18-04-2020 which is not satisfactory. 6 SN, J

5. After going through the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the -nuttrority i.e., the Addl. Director General of Oisclplinlry poli.", fSSp Bns, Hyderabad awarded the penalty of ;'ois.lssut from Service" by treatlng the suspension period as "NOT ON DUTY' vide Proceeding Rc.No Rl/167/19/2079- 21, H.OO.No. 325/ 2021, dated 0B-09-2021'

6. Aggrieved by above the orders, now he has submitted an appJJ petition to the Government, without exhausting the channel of DGP, TS Hence; The appeal petition lies with DGP' TS. o reco s and the

7. Iha ve oon throuoh the onnect eco oeten autho ritv tn. Not ta ino o rmissi nof a live but also he tamoered with the Bhad r tha n 8. There are no grounds in the appeal petition' Hence, the appeal petition is considered and rejected"' e o (D). ra Nos.12 and 15oft he coun Pa beha fof the resI)o ndent No.2 r affid avit filed extra cted hereund r:-

12. It is respectfully submitted that in reply to paragraphs iL a rz of the pe[ition, the petitioner referred an appeal Ji.e.tty to the Government instead of DGP, TS, Hyderabad to r"t-u-iia" his penalty but not for the post-facto permission ioi tontracting second marriage' The contention of the p"tition". sayiig that he addressed the Government for post Facto pe.mission for performing second marriage is not .o.r".i. Moreover, the petitioner is a Hindu' A Hindu cannot contract a second marriage while the first wife is living and sucn contracting of the second marriage is also an offence tpC. Therefore there is no scope for under section Government, to accord permission to the petitioner to .ontru.t a second marriage while the first wife is living as such an act is penal offence. His misconduct of performing iecond marriage during the subsistence of the first.marriage iannot Ue conioned and cannot be tolerated in a disciplined iorie llte TSSP. Further he was found guilty of changing the 'qS+ I i I I I I i I I ,a\ 7 SN, J " 'inJ in e-office, it rras iome photograph of nominee besides tampering the name in the Bhadratha nomination form as Smt. Suni[ni in ptace of nis wedded wife Smt. B. Koteshwari ;;; ";; "cria'nseo mother's name also. Hence he *u, u*uiAuJ tielenalty of DrsMrssAl FRoM sERVrcr ov -tnl- aistjpr,:i].v']rilo.itv u, per Go. Ms. No. 458 Generat Aa-inirtiltiol'istivr.rr-cl Dept, Dt: 22-O9-2OO7. 15. It is respectfullv submitted that in reply to paragraphs 75, L6, t7,18 & 19 oi the petition, while feedinq the data oF - io-loii.e or tne flligl"i , oepartment that he ,"tf:|.*.,:g:ona marriage ana .hung"J the photograph of nominee. Till that tir", if,li"titioner has kept the department in dark_of performing ;".;; marriage. As per Rute 25 of rSCS conor.t irjl]]"jruo, ,,*o Government employee who- has *ii" f irirg"'rhall contract another marriage without first obtainhg i"Lirrion or the Government, not wittrstanainj ti,"i ,r1i'rlosequent marriage is permissible u_n.,er the i"rion"f-lu* fJr the time being appticabte to him,,. rn this-;;;;';r"u'Glr".nr"n, servant and workino in a disciplinud fo..e police "p.]J. Departmenr, the petiiioner nad not tutun iermission from the Government for performing ,".."d"ra.."i"ge. After taking permission from rhe firsr *irE ."a i-i"r'i"iher, secono I:.ili1s: is nor acceptabte and it aoesn;t ,1iti. u, pu. bovernment rules. But he performed tne seconA marriage on his own accord against the ConJuct nrf", *iji.r.r .annot be condoned as per the Government rutes. nurtfrei, as per tne Hindu Religion, there is no provision for doing second marriage. Even the personal-law boarO-of ffii"arirrl they did not allow any Hindu person for ooing second ilul.ilg" *n"n his first wife is livinq. Further the p"iiti""". -f-rr, .iangeO tne photograph of noriinee o"sioes'tamie.-ing"it,";''n"r" or Bhadratha nomination form in the service- booi ana atso chan_ged the mother,s name. Tampering the official record and bigamy is a grave mis-conduct rbr. wnicf, tt e dJiu.nr"n, issued-orders to impose Dr-SMTSSAI iRoi4 SE.R;rcE as per GO. Ms. No. 458. Therefore, tf," Oi..ipfi-*.V authority iy3..99d rhe petitioner wirh a penatty or-6iivri6seL rnou SERVICE by treating the suspension period as NOT DUTY on the purview of Go. Ms. Nro. 4ss ro. oig;r;;;'ii'mpering or official records,,. -lit<e I I 8 sN, l i\ ! 'l N LU IO US IO AND DI 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that vide proceedings, Rc.No.Rl/167 /L9/2oL9- 21, HOO.No -32512O2L, dated O8'O9'2O21 issued by the Addl.Director General of Police' TSSP Bns' Hyderabad against the petitioner herein the penalty of dismissa! from service by treating the suspension period as "not on duty", had been imposed against the petitioner stating petitioner had exhibited gross misconduct that the by marrying another lady by name Sunitha indisciPline when his first wife Smt' Koteshwari is living and also committedgrossmisconductoftamperingwithofficial recordsbychangingthenameandphotographofthe nomanee in the Bhadrata nomination form' which cannot be tolerated in a disciplined force' on behalf of the Petitioner

6. Learned counsel aPPearing representation, dated submits that vide detailed State Government i'e', L8.L1..2O2I. addressed to the (Home Minister, Telangana State' Hyderabad)' the petitioner specificalty requested in the said representation that the same should not be treated as an appeal a 9 SN, J preferred by the petitioner under rule 33 of TSC (CCA) Rules, r99r against the penarty of dismissar from service imposed against the petitioner and the prayer as sought for by the petitioner in the said representataon, dated 18.11.2021 is onty grant of permission by the Government for treating the petitioner case on separate putting and save petitioner, petitioner,s five chitdren, two wives and petitioner,s parents by according post_facto permission for contracting second marriage whire petitioner,s wife is alive, who is not fit for procreation rife and atl the famiry members. 7 ear e n further submits n eh !f resD on se on r sa id reDre se ntation,

18. 11 .20 21. Mem o.No.12 36 P)t Ser-II /A2/2 2r th e Droc f Deoutv d e e t a d I a OV n o 2 h E I h D.G.P T lan qan a n ral fP ta a d t r e te sD ecificallv reouesttno Director a e r o o n e e OV r E t 10 l.'l SN, J for takinq further necessa however, the orderim DU 18.1 o.20 22hadbe n Dass tion in the ma r,b ut qned , Rc.No.2l 9ITL 12022 dated bv the D lrector Gen eral of d rab n h s r of th e n of" aqainst the oenaltvofd itioner 1 .20 to " tor on a n r erred e r ismis sal from serv ice bv treatrnq he us ns n rto as Rc. R 16 1 20 -2 t e o o.3 2L d d o8 .o9. o21 issu bv the T SP ns, vderabad wl theDe ition er indul oed in Add!.Di re tor Gene ral ofPo lice, h a clear observati on statinq that miscon uct and further that a u 8 Th Co rt n of he e ion ha 1 o a e Min e r r Tel n o tit ne e Go r e e b H t a e b he Dir t r o e r fP ti e r a d -) 1l e dl.D fP ti SN, J a n wit u bv the Deo tvSecretarv to Government, ated 31.1 2.2o21 referredto nt, d h s a d o 8 TS 2 1i Bn H der di ecti ons issu H me (SER .II) DeD e rac d the Di rector Gen era I fPolice, Telanqanastate,Hvderabad su ec t a r m rn G rn en herein for takinq n eces rv action in th matter hast ilv passed the order imo uqned, dated 1 8.10 .2022in aro uti ne therefo re, th isCourt oDrnes thatth Detition is entitl ed for the relief asD raved for bv theDetitioner tn the Dre nt Wr t Peti !on w th I a r h

9. Takino intoconsideration:- a) case, The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the b) The submissions made by the learned counse! of the petitioner and learned Pleader for Services Home appearing on behalf Assistant Government appearing on behalf of the respondents. t2 t-r SN, J c) The averments made in the counter affidavit filedonbehalfoftherespondents(referredtoand extracted above) d) The contents of the representation of the petitioner, dated 18.11'2021 addressed to the State Government(HomeMinister,TelanganaState,Hyderbad) (referred to and extracted above) e) The proceedings Memo'No'1236(P)/Ser- :I:,.lA2l2)2l' of the Deputy Secretary to Government' Home (SER.U) Department, dated 3L'L2'2O2L (referred to and extracted above) calling for a detailed report from the Director General of Police, Telangana State' Hyderabad along with O.E. records and proforma particulars ect" f) The order impugned, Rc'No'219/TL/2022' dated LA,LO.2O22 passed by the Director General of Police' Telangana, Hyderabad (referred to and extracted above) his Co rt t e u 2 T 20 2 1 .20 2 s Di Ge Te n n s H d d t a o s h I l3 an d t e ma e r remitt ed to t SN, J -a sr 4th res o den t a e n t e I n r e SI t e u s u a d t I t1 2 s 2 d I a n o n f a

10. s 2 o 1 I a d I h e a o s u v, u e oN I a 3 o s r a 1 o 1 e u t e v wi hin ofr c o c rt d r o t eor er o d c! n ti lo er lr r s n 1 e e ti ea ove di e n r o o h il rt Pe ti e o I r- di a d o e d Miscellaneous petitions, if Petition, shall stand closed. any, pending in this Writ I { 1l To, M. SD/-A MED ABDULLAH KHAN SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Commandant, 15th Bn., T.S.S.P., Sathupally, Khammam District. 2. The Additional Director General of Police, TSSP Bns-, Hyderabad. 3. The Director General of Police, State of Telangana, Hyderabad 4. The Principal Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Secretariat, 5, One Cc to SRl. D. BALA KISHAN RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES (HOME) High Court for the State of 7. Two CD Copies Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] T.S.,Hyderabad. I t { I I CC TODAY \ i: i SiP il?5 .ii : ,/ ti ,'f' .',<"t -'.J .- rra-, ,,-t , . ;,, f .-. , --:.-- - .-.. -:-'" HIGH COURT DATED:29 t0712025 t.\ ORDER WP.No.10746 of 2023 i) | (.) i r.-, " .:.: .k DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS q q (