Madhusudhan G v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 o'f the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated !n the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records related to l\rlemo.No. 2032-PlSer-lllA2l2019, dated 1711012019 of 1st ,xn* F6 Respondent, Articre of charge Memo vide No. A6/pR/.1 412013, dared 311212013 of tSr Respondent/S.p Medak, Rc.No. A2_ 2OtAppeat/NR_ NZBI201B, R O.No 167/2018 of 4th Respondent, proceedings R'O'No' 4112018 (Rc.No. 867ipR/wes t Zoner2o1', dated 6r2t2019 0f 3rd Respondent/l.G.p West Zone, Hyd and D.O.No. 3186 of 2013, dated 6-12-2013 0f 5th Respondenusp Medak and consequenry set aside the same by issuing a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to the Respondents giri.rfrff consequentiar benefits to the petitioner, decraring the a"tiJn oi*,e Respondents in passing above said cryptic and non-reasoned orders without any substance of evidence against the petitioner, disobeying the stare decisis taid !3wn Oy Honlte Supreme Court of lndia in sLP(c) No.7529 of 2009) l\,anohar s/o Manikrao Anchule vs State of Maharashtra and Anr, Honble High Court of T"lrngun, in W.p.N0.2 OF 2019 in case of G.Sudhakui nuOOy petitioner Vs.The State of Telangana, as arbitrary, i,egat, unlust ano ,i;i"t;"; "io",i,"ii,i., and 2'l of lndian Constitution. IA NO :1 oF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To direct the 1st Respondent to pass a reasoned order on the pending representation dated 114/2020 ot Petitioner duly applying the siare Iaid down by Honble Supreme Court of tndia in SLP(C) No.ZSZS of 2009) Manohar S/o.Manikrao Anchule vs State of t\/aharashtra and Anr, Honble High Court of Telangana in W.p.N0.2 OF 2O1g in """" oi O.lrd'nri* Reddy .. petitioner Vs.The State of Telangana, pending main Writ 'decisis Petition. Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. B SUBASH Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 to 6: Gp FOR HOME (TG) The Court made the following: ORDER I HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT ETI ON No. L74L7 OF ZOZL I ORDER: eard Sri B. Subash, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Government Pieader for Services- I for thc 1$ respondent.

2. A perusal ol the material on record discloses that petitionerwasappointedasArmedReservePoliceConstableon 22 06-1995. He was alleged to have involved for exhibiting gross misdemeanor, negligence towards duty, indiscipline attituclc' artd- embezzled the amount to tune of Rs'27 '6401- pertains to allowances of certain Home Guards of Medak District, besides abusing Sri M. Srinivas, HG 28 in unparliamentarily language and threatened with dire consequences to see his end, which is highly objectionable and thereby violated Rule 3, 3-B of APUS (concluct) Rules i964) Based on the letter addressed by the then MLA to the DGP, AP, Hyderabad stating that he learnt that salaries of Home guards were deducted showing absents, leaves and other deductions and illegally diverted the amount to some other Account No- 52727234871' SBH' Sangareddy, the DSP (AR) Sangareddy enquired and submitted report dated 15,04 2013. During the enquiry, DSP (AR) personally visited SBI4 Sangareddy Branch and found that the above account is ,/ rT "\ '\..1 existing irl petitioner's name; on perusal of the statement of account, it was lurther found that Home Guards salary amount lor the following days as mentioned against each date was credited into the above account number of ARPC' l81O viz' 1)dateo4-o5.2ol2forRs.78ol,2)dateo4-o52072for Rs.i,38O1-, 3) clate O7-O5-2O12 for Rs 5'780/ ' 'tl datelT-O7- 2012 for Rs.580/-, 5) date OT-O8-2O12 for Rs'6'18O/-' 6) date 03-1O-2O12 for Rs-6,18o/- and 7l date 09 112012 for Rs.6. 180,i -, totaling Rs.27,060l ' On further enquiry' it came to light that the said ARPC was working in Home Guards wing' AR Sangareddy on attachment basis and attending the Home guards related correspondence and he deliberately diverted / creditecl the HGs salary amount into his account' Accorcling to respondents, if it is by mistake' he should have brought the same to the notice of officers but he did not do such thing and embezzled the above amount which is highly objectionable. Based on the report of DSP' AR Sangareddy' petitioncr was placed under suspension on 16-04-2013 and Additional SP (AR), Sangareddy was instructed to conduct preliminarl' enquiry into the matter' Subsequently' suspension wzrs revoked on o6-o7-2013, as such, he reported for duty at PTC Amberpet, Hyderabad on lO-O7 -2013 ' ./ ,/ The Additional SP (AR) Sangareddy conducted 3. preliminary enquiry, recorded the statements of 1 I connected witnessesandsubmittedreportsalongwithmaterialdocuments on.O8-O8-2O13; as per the enquiry reports of Additional SP (AR)' Sangareddy coupled with statements of connected witnesses and material documents' framed Article of charge 20 of APCS (CC &A) Rules 199 1 submitted l3-12-2O13; Petrtroner AS contemPlated under Rule o11 against Petitioner explanation on 06-02-2014; the CI' Narsapur was appointed as lnquiry AuthoritY (EO) to conduct OE against him on the above allegations uide proceedings dated 2a-O2-2O14 and in terms of Rule 2O (5) of APCS CCA Rules' the Sl Narsapur was appointed as Presenting Officer on 19-03-2014 Further the rePresentation of petitioner was forwarded to Enquiry Officer to permit him utilize the services of one Sri B' Subhash' PC 2239 of RGI Airport PS, Cyberabad as defence assistant for taking further action in terms of Rule 20 (5) ol APCS CCA Rules 1991 uide Memo dated 15-04-2014, during the course of O'E ' the Enquiry Officer examined and recorded the statements of 12 witnesses arrd 22connected documents were marked as exhibits on behalf of prosecution in the presence of charged officer' presenting officer and defence assistant as well' After completion- of O'E' - I -l Minutes along with records were submitt ed on 12_04_2016 holding the charges leveled against petitioner as ,Not proved,. 4- However, Dissent Note dated 2g_112O16 was issued czrlling his written statement of defense for which petitioner submitted explanation on 2T l7-2OlT. The Disciplinary Authority ie. Sp, Sangareddy disagreed with the findings of Enquiry Officer and held the charge as provecl and awarded him punishment of ,,pOSTpONEMENT OF INCREMENT FC)R A PtrRIOD OF ONE YEAR WITH EFFECT ON FUTURE INCRtrMENTS AND PENSION,, by treating his suspension period n.e.f. 18-O4 2013 to O9-OZ-2013 as ,,NOT ON DUTY,, on 01-05-20 18. The Appeal preferred to the 4n respondent uuas re.jecterl on 08 08 2O 18. Revision petition filed before the 3nl respondent ivzrs considered and the punishme nt was modified to that of 'RTSP fcrr (2) years without effect on future lncrements and pension" and suspension period is treated as not on dut5r vide order dated O6-O2-2O 19.

5. Subsequently, petitioner submitted representations to the l't respondent dated 2l_OS-2Olg, to set_aside the modihed punishment of "RTSp for 2 years without effect on future Increlnents and pension" and suspension period treated \as not on duty but the same was rejected on 17 1O_2019 u,hich r was communicated to petitioner uide office Memo dated O6 12- 2O19. Petitioner again submitted representation to the 1st respondent on 01-04-202O, with the same request' The contention of learned Government Pleader is that when once the representation is rejected, again entertaining the same by the lst This Court is in full agreement \llith respondent does not arise the said contention.

6. Learned counsei for petitioner contends that the 5tl' respondent in his entire Dissent Note nowhere mentioned .the process and statutory procedure of preparing bills of dutv allowance of Home Guards by District Police Office staff rather than him and that M. Srinivas, HG 28 in his cross-examination before the Enquiry Oflicer admitted that he contacted ltrst Sri Krishna, Clerk, DPO who process the duty allowance of Home Guards and after seeking the {ile, it would be sent to higher officials; the DSP AR, RI AR and Additional SP Admn' wouid sign the bil1s but there is no signature of charged offrcer and if any errors take place in the bills, the officers who signed the bills are only responsible and these facts are suppressed Lry the Sth respondent in dissent note' No document has been produced by the 5ft respondent with regard to processing the du$l allowance bi1ls of home guards' The cross-examination of \ ./ 6 -. -1 \- -I- P.W. 1O Smt. Y.Vijaya Laxmi, Chief Manager, SBH, Sangareddy Branch that there is possibility of depositing money in the chargecl ofiicer's account by another. lt is submitted that the 4th respondent rrechanically rejected the Appeal without recording anv cogenr. rcasons bluntly following the proceedings of the 5ft responcient ar-rd the 3'd respondent though modified the punishmenr of PPI for one year with effect on futu re increments anci pensio:-r and treating the suspension period w'e'f 18 04- 2013 lo 09 07-2013 as not on duty, no reasons are assigned for not se tting aside the punishment. In support of his contention, I reliance is placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhr;:ro:t Singh tt. State of Haryanal, trll/s Neeha,riko Infrastt'ucture a. The Sto:fz of Maharashtraz, M'A' Mutthg u. State of Ka:rr.;o:ta,ka'3 and that of the High Court of Calcutta in Dr. Subh ash Chandra Tiuari a- West Bengal Medical Councila. 7 . A pcrusal of dissent note, in this backclrop, makes it cle:rr that cluring O.E, the Addl. SP(AR) supported his report ciat.ecl O8-1)8-2O13 and 08-11-2O13 and reported that he obtained slatement of account from bank, perusal of which rAtRl988tt8l I Crinrinal Appeal No. liO of202l - .\nnr.rl (Cirrlt Nu. 691i-6914 ol200i t\'r,..,,,. ., i.ic t tv ) of 20l9 / 7 revealed that duty allowances of certain Home Guards \{'ere credited on the various dates in delinquent's account; charged officer while working in Home Guard Office used to prepare credit into the ir respectlve Annexure of duty allowances and bank accounts; taking advantage of the same, the charged officer deliberately diverted the amounts into his SB account and the delinquent cannot ignore his duties by pushing on others thc allegations established against him' P'Ws l to 4 who did not receive their duty allowance, during prcliminary enquiry stated that when they approached, petitioner stated that their amounts might have credited to other accounts, but, during preliminary enquiry, they all turned hostile, which shows that petitioner managed all of them very well. Further, as per thc bank statements, the duty allowances of certain Home Guards to the tune of Rs.27,640/- was deposited to delinquent personal saving Accoupt and it cannot be ignored' P'W's, HG 28 who gave compliant dated O4-O1-2O23 before SP Medak, stated during preliminary enquiry that allowances of Rs'580/- was not credited to his bank account; he contacted HC 1007 Nayeem who replied that amount was credited to his account; then he enquired by visiting DPO, Sangareddy and noticed that amount was credited to A/c No. 5212723847 | of petitioner and thercbl' he summoned to the DSP, AR Office to receive money, but he I \/,/ I .t L IJ refused to return back and to sign receipt and thr: delinquent abuscd him over phone in fi1thy language and threatened with dire r;onsequcnces to see his end. P.W.S did not turn hostile in OE. It clcarl-r' reveals that petitioner threatened him on refusal of the amount and his involvement. In that regard, petitioner tvers au,ardccl u,ith the punishment of censure uide proceedings datecl 22 2 )Ol3 and later on the same was set aside by SP Medak uirie 1>roceedings dated 06-12-2013. In the riisst:nt note, it u,as;rlso mcntioned that as per the bank stateme:nt, the duty allowance ol- r:ertain home guards to the tune of Rs.'.27 ,640 /- u,as depositr:cl in petitioner's personal saving account and it cannot [)c rgnored in the interest ofjustice. {i. Morcover, the respondents in the counter stated tl:lt tlrr: ;;rocr:dure laid down in the CCA Rules 1!19 I was completr:lv lollowed in the departmental action against the chargcd oflict-r and in the process of departmental enquiry, the allcgat.ions icvr:llcd against the charged ofhcer arc clearly establisler:rl- He was given reasonable opportunity to submit his defense and the statements of prosecution witnesses and connectcrl c vidcnces are examined in detail in the enqulry, u,hir:l-r ck arh 1;roves the allegations levelled on him f'etitioner has not pr-ovlcl the contra. Here, it is to .be remembered that I I the Honble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments held that I the power of judicial review is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision-making process. This Court does not sit in judgment on merits of the decision. It is not open to the High Court to re-appreciate and re-appraise the evidence led belore the Inquiry Officer as a Court ofAppeal and reach its orvn conclusions.

9. Though, petitioner submits that the re is dclerl. in issuing the dissent note, in view of the discussion supra, the said contention pales into insignificance. For all the reasons stated, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief as claimed in thc Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismisscd. 10 CoStS 1 I . The Writ Petition is accordingly, dism isserl . No Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications. if anr. sha[[ stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/- C. DEEPIKA TANT REGIST SECTION OFFICER \J ,l.ThestateofTelangana,HomeDepartment'Rep.byitsPrincipalSecretary, T.S. Lakidikapul, HYderabad -04.

2. The Director General of Police, Telangana State, Lakidikapul, Hyderabad -

3. The lnspector General of Police' West Zone, Hyderabad at T'S DGP Office Complex, Lakidikapul, Hyderabad - 04.

4. The Deputy lnspector of Police, Nizamabad Range, Nizamabad 5. The Superintendent of Police, Medak now Sangareddy 6. The.C.l of Police, Narsapur, Medak District I i

7. One CC to SRl. B SUBASH Advocate IOPUCI 8. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES I ,High Court for the State of Telangana. touTl I

9. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME (TG) ,High Court for the State of Telangana. 'l0.Two CD Copies tt.One spare copy w DG G HIGH COURT DATED:21 10412025 \ ORDER WP.No.1741'r of 2021 14: a o 2 3 Jl-N 2'1ffi o( o .S nAT CH eO * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS q<el \r(9 Yrx* a\'