The High Court · 2025

Order

This Writ Petition is flled seeking the follovving relief "...to call for the records relating to proceedings in C.No.A6/A6-1/OE/2OO9(1979) DO No.1B4O/2O11 dt. 17.O9.2O11 of the 4th respondent in imposing the punishment of remouaL from seruice and the Proceedings Rc.No.1227/ Dl Appeal/ HR/2014(RO No.951/ 14) dated 04.09.2014 of thE 3'd Respondent in dismissing the appeal and the Proceedings in R.O.No-75/2O15 Rc.No.21 1/ PR/ Reun/ WZ/ 2014-15 dated 20.O3.2O15 of the 2"d respondent in dismissing the reuision of the applicant ond the Memo No.10565/Ser.ll/A1/2015 dated 2O.O1.2O16 in rejecting the Representation of the applicant for settirLg aside the orders punishment as illegal. Consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the applicont into seruice utith all consequential benefits fortfuuith and pass..."

2. Heard Sri Kadari Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for services (Home), appearing lor the respondents.

3. karned counsel for the petitioner submitted as follows: That initially, the petitioner was appointed as a Police Constabie in the year 1998 and rendering his service with r-- \' .- -_ rt 2 utmost srncerrt \ While the petitioner r+,as r,r,orl<ing as a police constablc in Nzrlgonda District, disciplinary pr-(,ceedings were initiated against him by issuing a charge memo .,ide Proceedings C.No.26lA6- l lOE l2009(1979), dated 13.08.2()t)9 of the 4't' respondent alleging as follows "Count 1: Gros-s misconduct in prepartlg fake computerized Police Certificates, beaing Nos..ilt5/ NGA II/ 2OOq dt. 1 1 .O5.2O09 and 601/ NG4 tl/ 2OO9 dt.14.O5.2OO9 regarding loss o/ oiginal passprrts of Sn Mohd. Krtkrcmullah S/ o. Waheedulloh" 35 yrs, Occ. Plots Busirress R/ o. H.No. 5 11 415, HyderklLcnguda, Nalgonda rrrrd Sn. Mohd. Khursheed S/o. Moht1. Khasirn, J3 .r7rs, R/o. II.No. 6-2-878/C1, Meer Bagl,. Colottg, ITyderaburl [?oarl, Nalgonda respectiuelg on his ltersonal computer r home and forging the signature rtf SI of Police, Nctlrlonda II(T) PS and affr-ring duplicate ::lcnnps of SI on the' Ceftiftr:ates and giuing the same to tLte saicl Mohd. Kakrrnullcth and Mohd. Khursheed for I?s.2OOO/' ctnd 3OOL\/ res;;ectiuely and fraudule.ntly helpe;1 them in gett rg nertt pass?orts and thereby got inuolued h Cr.No. 141/ 2OO') rt/ s 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC of PS Ntlgonda r4r). Courtt II; (iross L'lisconduct in prepaing (19) far;e rubber starnps o.l' urtiotts officers and forging hire cha,r..rels bilLs and medicrtl ceftificates etc.,

4. The petitioner made a representation fo - delerment of cliscrplinarv pror--cedings till the disposal of the ( riminal case as -) the charges were not different in the Departmental as well as in the criminal proceedings. Despite the said representation, respondent No.4 proceeded with the disciplinary proceedings by appointing an Enquiry Officer vide proceedings dated

10.09.2009. The Disciplinar5r Authority had acted in breach of the procedure contemplated under Rule 20 of ApCCA Rules as no Prcsenting Officer was appointed to present the case of the prosecution in the departmental proceedings before the Enquiry Officer. In the absence of the Presenting Officer, the trnquiry Oflicer had assumed role of the Prosecutor and proceeded u,ith the enquiry arld submitted a report holding that the charge drau n against the petitioner was held proved.

5. During the course of enquiry, four witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and their statements \.{,.ere recordcd by the Enquiry Officer without there being any Presenting Officer. No independent witness was examined to substantiate the charge drawn against the petitioner and all the abo\re mentioned witnesses examined against the petitioner, a-re the oflicial witnesses. Despite the evidence of the official r,r,itnesses is not corroborated by any independent witnesses and despite the evidence of the official witnesses does not point out the complicity of the petitioner, the Enquiry Oflicer has chosen l .+ to rely upon the statement of PW.2 so as 1.o come to the conclusion that the charge against the petitic,ner was held proved. The lindings ol the Enquiry Ofhcer are f)erverse as the Enquiry Officr:r choscrr to hold that the charge ',r'as l-reid proved based on the statements of the witnesses. With,rut marking the documents in support of the prosecution, the E)nquiry Officer had chosen to re Iv upon the record available u'ith him and came to the conclusion that the charge framed against th.: petitioner was proved. Further, the Enquiry Officer had drawn strength to hold that the charge agarnst the petitioner as p:c,ved by relving upon the recorcl concerning the investigation made by the police in the criminal case registered against the p,etitioner. The Enquiry Officer l-rad acted in a biased manner a: the dictates of the Disciplina:r authoritv investigation.

6. Apart from initiating departmental proceedrngs against the petitioner, a case u as registered against him uide Crime No. 141 of 2OO9 concerning the sarne issue of issuance of fake certilicates undcr the provisions of IPC., and that full-fledged trial lr,as conducted b1' the learned trial Court an,l C.C.No.202 of 2012 n,as ended in acquittal uide ludgment dated 15.04.2014. The learned trial Court after appreciation of evi<lt:nct: held that the prosecution lailccl to prove the ingredients of cheating and 5 lorgery as none of the witnesses stated about the alleged forgery and no tcchnicai evidence avarlable so as to come to the conclusion to prove the guilt of the petitioner concerning the act of the alleged forgery. Hence, when the evidence let in the departmentat proceedings and the criminal proceedings is examined, it is evident that the witnesses are the one and the same and the nature of allegation in both the parailel proceedings is same, and as such it is clear that the Enquiry Officer in the departmental proceedings had come to a conclusion without there being aly evidence to prove the complicity of the petitioner by merely relying upon the statements of officia-l witnesses. 7 . The documents which are said to have been prepared by the petitioner and which was the genesis lor initiation of the disciplinan, proceedings against the petitioner, were not marked in the enquiry so as to substantiate the charge against the petitioner. Non-examination of the crucia-l witnesses and not marking of the documents are incurable defccts and in the absence ol any evidence, no ltndings can be arrived at regarding proving of the charge. 6

8. Based on the report of the Enquiry Officer, respondent No.4 had issued a shou cause notice to the p,:titioner '"vithout appreciating the merits o[ the case, seeking lurther u,ritten statement of defence from the petitioner. ThouSlh the petitioner had submitted the explanation, the same was nlt, considered by respondent No.4 and has chosen to issue the inLpugned orders imposing a major penaltv of removal from sen' ce and that the orders rssued b1, respondent No.4 are highly di sproportionate to the misconduct alleged against the petitioner

9. The petitioner liled an appea-l before respcndent No.3 and revision before respondent No.2 and the same were rejected through a non speaking order u'ithout assigning any sustainable reasons. As the orders of punishment and the orders of appellate and the revisional authority 1n c rnfirming the punishment orders of respondent No. 1, are con1r,rry to lavv and the petitioner q'as constrained to file a mercy petilion before the Government and the same tl'as rejected ulde Memo dated

20.O1.2O16. I{ence, the present Writ Petition.

10. l,earned counsel for respondent No.4, filed r:c unter affidavit and submits thet the petiLioner \\/as appoinrcd as Poiice Constzrble (Civil) 1n Nalgonda District on 01 .C!). 1999 and at 1 present he is "Removed from Service" artd was placed under suspension uide DO No.1O2912009 (C.No.1979 I A6-l lPRl2OO9\, dated 14.07.2009 and dea-lt with PR under Rule 20 of APCS (CC&A) Rules 199 1 on the allegations of gross misconduct in preparing fake computerized Police Certificates, bearing Nos.595/NGA-ll I 2OO9 and 6O1lNGA-ll /2OO9, dated 14.05.20O9 regarding loss of original passports of Sri Mohd. Kaleemullah and Sri Mohd. Khursheed, on his personal computer at home, forging the signature of Sl of Police, Nalgonda II (T) PS and affixing duplicate stamps of SI on the certificates and giving the same to the said persons for Rs.2,000/- and Rs.3O0/- respectiveiy and fraudulently helped them in getting new passports by preparing fake rubber stamps of various ofhcers and forging hire charges bills and medica-l certihcates etc., and thereby getting involved in a criminal case uide Cr.No.141 of 2OO9 for the offences punishable under Sections 42O, 467, 46a and 47 I of IPC. The misconduct on part of the petitioner was clearlv established in the departmental inquiry.

11. The SDPO, Miryalguda, was appointed as inquiry authority to conduct an oral enqu iry into the above allegations and he conducted the oral enquiry and submitted enquiry report uide C.No.05/Otr,/SDPO-M/20O9, dated 25.06.2O11, holding the I I.l It charge against the petitioner as "Proved". 'l'he three civil witnesses were not examined and their evidett:r: was given up due to their non ai,ailabilitv at their addresses. Ihe evidence of four ofhcial rvitnesses i.e., PWs. L to 4 as u'ell as documentary evidence available on record, amply proves th,11. the petitioner had preparecl lake computerized Police Certif ic:ates regarding loss of original passports.

12. The charged officer/ petitioner had not protested about non-appointment of any Presenting Oflicer ancl he did not raise any objection u,hen asked b1, the Inquiring A -r:hority and he declared that nothing was Lhere to add an< requested the Inquiring Authority to proceed u,ith departmen tzLl enquiry. The Enquiry Oflicer had carefully gone through tlre oral enquiry, charge, deposition of PWs. t to 4 and other piLrticulars of the forged documents prepared b-v the petitioner () tl his personal computer whrch u,as seized under cover of pi rrtch:rnama and held the charge as "Proved". A copy of the inc uirl report was supplied to the petitioner calling for his further-r:presentation, if any. The petitioner, accordingly, submitte,:i his further explanation, u'hich is not convincing as per CCA Ruies and order No.l79 (2)(3) of APPM, and final orders u.erc l>assed on the enquiry report. The cherrge sheet in the crimin rl <:erse had not -, -/- been filed in the Court at the time of disposal of departmental I enquiry. Therefore, he was awarded the punishment of "Removal from Service" and his suspension period from 09 '07 '2009 to till the date of service of this order \\'as treated as "Not on Duty" uide proceedings DO.No. l84Ol20 I 1, C.No'26/ A6-llOEl2OO9 17979),' dated 17.O9.2011.

13. A criminai case was pending uide Cr'No' 14l of 2OO9 on the file of Nalgonda [l-Tou'n Police Station' A full-fledged trial was conducted by the learned trial Court and C C'No'2O2 of 2Ol2 was ended in acquittal uide judgment dated 15'04'2014' Th'e petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No'3 and the sarrre was considered and rejected vide Proceedings RO.No.951/2014 (RC.No. 1227 lDl-Appeat/HR/ 1a), dated 04.lO.2Ol4 . Later, the petitioner preferred revision before respondent No.2 and the same u'as considered and rejected vide Proceedings RO.No.75 of 2015 (Rc'No'211/PR/Revn/West Zonel2OI4-15) dated 20.03.2015 and the same was informed to the petitioner.

14. The petitioner preferred a mercy petition before respondent No.1 on OB.O7 .2015 and the same was considered and rejected' The Chief Office , uid.e Memo Rc.No. lO42lTl l2Ol5, dated l0

21.O7.2015 informed that as per the instrtrr:tions issued in Government Memo No.22494 lPol.B I A2l ).()OO 1 1O.O7.2OOO, tht:re is no provision to consider rnercl, petitions arld directed to inform the individual. \i In light of the above, the respondents subrnit that the writ petrtion lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed FINDINGS OF THE COURT: I 5. A peru sal of the record shou's th a i dt,partmental proceedings and criminal proceedings \^'ere goinri on against the petitioner. While pending the departmental procccdings, the petitioner was ar:quitted from the criminal case a -L3r full trial. At thal juncture, without considering the acquittal r r-ler rn criminal case, the respondent authorities removed the pcritioner from the servlce. Whether the removal order is legalll' sustrrinable or not, is the question.

16. The contention of the respondents is tl i:t as per the investigation and u,itnesses, it clearly establrshed that the petitioner had created the lake police clearaltt. I cer.tillcate by forging the signaLure of the PW.1, affixing duplicu rtr: stamps of SI on the certificates. The authorities also seized rtre zrrticles i.e. petitioner's per-sonal computer and allied things. .r'hiclr supports \ the respondents' contention. Hence, the charge against the -/ petitioner was held to be proved

17. As per CCA Rules and Order No.179(2)(3) of APPM, final orders can be passed on the enquiry report as the chargesheet in the criminal case had not been flled in the Court at the time of disposal of the departmental enquin'. Hence, he was awarded the punishment of 'removal flrom service' and his suspension period from O9.O7 .2OO9 to till date of service of the order was treated as 'not on duty', vide office proceedings dated

17.O9.2oll. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred art appeal and appeal u,as dismissed on 04. lO.2Ol4 on the ground that the appeat is time barred. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner had stated in the appeai about his acquittal in the criminal case on 15.04.2014. But, the department did not prefer any appeal against the acquittal order in criminal case. So, it can safely be concluded that it is final. Even then, the appeal was dismissed onlv on the ground of 'time barred" without going through the merits of the case as weil as acquittal order. Against the same, the petitioner preferred revision on

08. 1 1 .20 1 4 and the sarne \47as dismissed on 20 .O3 .2O 1 5 in a mechanical manner. 2

18. Though the contention of the petitioner that without conducting the oral enquiry in a proper manner i ':' onl-v olficial witnesses were examined and private persolls could r-rot be examined as they left the country. The petitiorrt:r has clearly mentioned in the appeal about his acquittal in thrr criminal case' But, the salrle was also not considered. Without 'onsidering the above aspects, tbe appellate authority rejected tlrer appeal ol the petitioner only on the ground of 'time barred.' lg. Once the incumbent raised al objection u'it I regzrrd to due process of oral t:nquiry as the enquiry u'as cot Lrlucted b-\ not examining all the witnesses, the appellate at tr I-.oriLy r"'ithout going through the above aspects, dismissed the appeal as stated supra. Thottgh the appellate authority rejecte'r I the appeerl on the ground ol 'time barred', it is the duty ol the appellate authority to go through grounds raised rn tlrc appeal and consider the same, but it should not simply rejec't the appeal on the ground of 'time barred.' Had the appr llate authority considered the :rppeal grounds, the punishmt''r t u ottld have been otherwise. Wherever the departmental 1;roceedings and the criminal proceedings are initiated, either of tlrc one hzrs to be stopped. But, in the present case both it' departmcntal proccedings ald the criminal proceedings were i'lrtiated When a criminal case ends in an acquittal after full trial, the authorities ought not to have passed the removal order. To support his contention, the petitioner based on the similar set of facts, relied upon the following judgmenrs In the case of G.M. Tank Vs. State of Qujarat and. anothert; wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings observed as lollows: 'In our opinion, such facts and euidertce in the department as u.tell as ciminal proceedings were the, same utithout there being any iota of difference, the appellant should succeed. The distinction which is usually proued betueen the departmental and cimital proceedings on the basis of tLe approach and burden of proof utould not be opplicoble in tLrc instant case. Though ftnding recorded in the domestic enquiry u.tos fourtd to be ualid bg the Courts belou.t, u.then there uas an honourable acquittal of the emplogee duing the pendencg of the proceedings challenging ttLe dismissal, the some requires to be taken note of and tte decision in Paul Anthong's case (supra) uLill applA. We, therefore, hold that the appeal filed by the appellont deserues to be allowed." On the basis of the same charges and the euidence, the Department passed an order of dismissal on 21.10.1982 whereas the Ciminal Court acquitted him on 3O.Ol.2OO2 and until such acquitta| there LUCts no reason or ground to /\ lR 1006 S('2129 i l I '..t 14 hold the rlisnrissal to be erroneous, anA relie f tnorrctrtrily con be only to.e.f.30.01 .2002. But bg then, tte appellant had retired. therefore, tue deem it proper to sei aside the order of rlismissol u.tithout back uoges. 'I'|rc appeLlont uould be errtitled to pension. For the foregoirtg ntascttts, tue set aside the judgment ond order dated 28.O1..1(t02 pctssed bg the leamed single Judge in Special Ciuil applrr. No.948 of 1983 os affirmed bg the Diuision Bench in L.P.A. No. 1085 of 2002 ancl allou this appeal."

20. In the case of D. Khasim Saheb Vs. Director of Marketing in W.P No.23373 of 2003, decided orr 02 05.2023 br the Division Be nch of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, wherein it is held as follows "8. Noul it is well settled thot when an en'qlloyee u-tas ocquitted in the ciminal case and it is an h.onourable acquittal, the findtng of guilt recorded agoitlst him in the departmental enquiry and impos nq ntajor punishment against him on the basts of the :;r-tme set of facts carmr>t be sustained. The legal position tt this regard is no more resintegra and the samt' has been tuell settled. " By follou'ir-rg the judgment of the Hon'ble Sr prcnrc Court in the case ol G.M. ?cnlc (supra), the W.P.No.233'3 of 20O3 r,r,as allou,ed i - ) 21. In the case on hald also, the petitioner was acquitted from the criminal case on 15.04.2014. Under similar set of facts, the authorities proceeded with criminal procecdings and departmental proceedings. Whiie pending the criminal proceedings, the removal order was passed on 17 .09.2011. Remedy was available to the petitioner to prefer an appeal and revlsron. In the interregnum period, the petitioner r.r,as acquitted from the criminal case on 15.O4.2014 and relerring the acquittal order, the petitioner preferred al appeal and revision. Without considering the acquittal order, the authorities rejected appeal on the ground of 'time barred'and rejection order was passed in a mechanical way, altd confirmed the removal order. Though the criminal case is ended in acquittal, the conduct of the petitioner cannot be encouraged by any authority. Such activity can be curbed by following due process of law. Otherwise, it vitiates the entire departmental proceedings

22. In view of the principles laid dou,n in the above case law, as the petitioner was acquitted after lull trial and once the acquittal order passed by the trial Court and since no appeal is preferred against the said judgment, the removal order as confirmed by the appellate authority and revisional authority, cannot be legally sustained, as such, it is liable to be set aside l6 Accordingly, the removal order is set aside, hori,ever, without back w,ages. Merelv because there is a glitch on .he part of the respondent authorities in prosecuting the c.rs(l against the petitioner u'ith <lue process of iaw and they failed to establish the case agains;t the petitioner by not prod rrr:ing sufficient evidence, does not mean that the petitioner is an rnnocent. Had the petitioner not been committed any such offence, the respondent ar-rthorities who are in a discipline<l lo rce, u,ould not have taken suctr a serious action of removal frrrn the serwice. Moreover, the pr:titioner also did not adduce anr evrdence that the rcspondent authorities had an ill-motive and t,t take revenge against him, foisted a false case. In the said circurnstances, this Court is of the considered view that the petilio:er is not al innocent, and to abandon such irregularities in ttre department in future, he is not granted any back wages.

23. [n vieu' of the loregoing discussion, tht: r emoval order, dated 17.09.201 1 passed by the 4th respondenl is hereb-v set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to reinstate the petitioner within a period of two (O2) months from the date of receipt of a cop) of this order. However, the Jx titioner is not entitled to an-r back wages from the date of his suspension i.e.

09.O7 .2OO9 till his reinstatement II I 17 24 With the above direction, the Writ pctition is disposed of No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII Sd/-MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER To, I i:: ;r1,"?SBI3??IB'BL'ome Deparrment, Secretariat Buirdings, i *i u**':h-,t,"N,;.,lq"ffi#1,tr€,trffi b. two CCs to Gp fOn Si _ tetangana, at Hvderaba( /. Iwo CD Copies u*u-- - ." : PMK i I) HIGH COURT DATED:2511012025 ORDER WP(TR).No.6473 o12017 I \ I E. Sr l-,i Iq. ,fr ( g 6 ti[tl &t r. ,.'\ :) - ,:r .') t: i;,e rg)ii -1 DtsPosrNG oF THE WRIT PETITION (TR) WITHOUT COSTS