The High Court · 2025

Order

Heard Sri C,Rajashekar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services Home appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2 as undejl n ra roached t ra e "...to issue a writ order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring the Impugned Proc No A4/OSlMajor-PR-2017-19, DO. No. 798/2OLg, Dt 24/07/ 2Ot9 of the 2nd respondent and further Impugned Appeal Rejection order in R.O.No. 943/2019, Rc No. BB6/D141lHR/2079, dt 6/tr/2019 of the 3'd respondent and further consequential Impugned Revision Rejection order in R.O.No.21l2020 Rc.No.1242IPR/WZ/2079, dt 27/Ol/2020 of the 4th respondent and final consequential Impugned Review Rejection order in C.No. A4l11lMisc-PR/NRPT/2022, dl lll}5/2022 oF the 5th respondent by imposing a punishment of PPI For one year without effect on future increment and pension and the suspension period from 19/B/20L7 to 3t/12/2017 (r34 days) is treated as not on duty is highly illegal arbitrary unreasonable discriminatory and without any application of mind and also violatirre of Article 14,76 and 21 of the Constitution of India and declare the same as bad in law and set- aside the same and Consequently direct the respondents to count the service of the petitioner with notionally along with his batch mates i.e.,29/3/2018 in the promotion category i.e., AR Head Constable and with all consequential beneiits ancl to pass..." J 2 SN, J 3 The caseofth ef as per the averments rude in the affidavit filed bv the oetitioner in ert n eDe of the Dresent Writ Petition i as under:- The petitioner was appointed as AR police: Constable on 20.08.1995 and posted in Mahoobnagar headquarters. On

certain allegations FIRs were lodged or 30.06.201,7, consequently criminal cases were registered vide Cl.C. No 358 of t7 and C.C No 359 of 2Ol7 on the file of Hon'ble Court of special ludicial Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and Excise at Mahaboobnagar and the petitioner was acquitte(l from both the cases by judgment dated 02.05.2019. The petitioner was removed from the service by the 2nd rr:spondent vide proceedings dated 19.08.2017 based on the s;ame FIR and charges were framed on 5.01.2018, for which the petitioner filed a written statement of defence. However, the enquiry officer conducted enquiry behind the back of the petitiorrer and without considering the petitioner's defence and subseq rently submitted a report on 07.06.2019 by stating that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved. The Petitione- submitted the detailed explanation to the said enquiry report f,n OB.O7 .2}lg, ) SN. ] but the 2nd respondent vide orders dated 24.7.2019 awarded the punishment of PPI for one year without effect on future increment and pension and the suspension period from

19.08.2017 to 31.12.2017 i.e., L34 days treated as not on duty without considering the said explanation given by the petitioner and also without taking into consideration the Hon'ble acquittal of the petitioner from the same charges by the Hon'ble court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and Excise at Mahaboobnagar vide judgment dated 02.05.2019. It is further the case of the petitioner that thereafter the petitioner filed an appeal against the order dated 24.07.20L9 before the 3'd respondent and the same was rejected on

06.11.2019 without assigning any reasons. Subsequently a revision against the order dated 06.11.2019 was filed by the petitioner and the same was rejected by the 4th respondent vide order dated 27.1.2020. It is further the case oF the petitloner that the petitioner was promoted to the post of AR Head Constable Vide Proceeding dated 3.05.2021, however the batch mates of the petitioner were promoted to the said post on 29.03.2018. Hence, the petitioner was denied his right to notional promotion from I SN. J

29.03.2018 on which the petitioner,s batch mates were promoted. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner preferred the present writ petition. 4 P RUSED T E REC A. The order imouon ed No.A4lO /Maior-PR oL7-L9 DO.No. 79812OL9. dated 24.07.2o 19 of the 2td res is extracted hereu nder: - The SI, Mahabubnagar Rural pS has submitted an report vide reference 1 cited, stating that Sri Ryakamaiah, ARPC 266, DAR, Mahabubnagar and ris brother are illegally transporting the sand to Mah:bubnagar from Koilkonda without any valid license fronr the concerned authority for their monitory benefits since long time. Further both picked up quarrel with the men of Mahabubnagar Rural PS and obstructed to discharge the duties of PC 2536 Sri.V.Sahadev and pC351 Sri.G.Krishnaiah of Mahabubnagar Rural ir public and also involved in criminal cases Cr.No.253/20I't Uls 379 IpC, Sec.21(i) Mines & Mineral Development and Regulation Act, 1957, Sec.3 of PDPP Act and Cr.irio.254/2otl U/s 353,341 IPC of Mahabubnagar Rural P:i. Further, SI, requested to take disciplinary action aq.linst ARpC.266. Hence, the ARPC.266 was placed under r;uspension vide reference 3rd cited. Later he was releasecl rrom suspension pending departmental enquiry against thr:m vide reference order 4th cited and was reported for duty on 30.12.2017. The ARPC.266 was dealt with on Major t,Fl involving in an oral enquiry for the above allegations vide this office Article of charge 5th cited. The SDPO, Na13yanpet and SI, Makthal were appointed as IO and PO vide references 6th and 7th, while OE-is under progress tre ARpC.266 has requested to change the IO. As such the DSp, DCRB, l SN, J Mahabubnagar was appointed as Inquiry officer to conduct OE reference Bth cited. The DSP, DCRB, Mahabubnagar had conducted the OE against charged oFficer. During the enquiry the EO examined as many as (6) witnesses and marked Ex-P1 to P13 on behalf of prosecution and opportunity was given to the charged officer to produce any witness or document in his defense. The charged officer did not choose to produce any witnesses on his defense. However the charged officer was submitted his explanation to EO. The EO based the statements of witnesses and OE records, submitted his minutes that the CO was found to be found involved in nefarious business of illegal transportation of sand along with his relatives to earn easy money. Intervened and obstructed the performance of legitimate duties of police constables of Mahabubnagar Rural PS and pushing them aside, facilitating escape of his brother from custody of police constables, demoralizing police officers efforts in curbing social evils from society. The charge against CO is 'PROVED vide reference 9th cited. I have gone through the article of charge, explanation of CO and connected records. As the explanation of the delinquent is not convincing, he is awarded the punishment 'PPI for one year without effect on future increments and pension under rule 2L(4) ol APCS (CC & A) Rules 1991, the suspension period from 19.O8.2OL7 to 3[.L'2.2OL7 (134-days) is treated as'NOT ON DUTY. B. The relevant oortion of th e order imouoned R.O.No.943l2 19. Rc.No .8 86 IDL-4!lHRl2o 9- 1 O6.11.2O19 of the 3rd resoo ndent is extract dhere u nder:- " I have gone through the O.E.records, final orders and appeal petition of the aPPellant. Thouoh the criminal cases CC Nos.358/2OL7 and 359/2O 17 ended in t b a ssocra tnvo edi M ith i[ r 6 fs nd. Hen the appellant is considered and reiected'. h al eti SN. J c The relevant portion of Lhe order imouqned R.O.No.21l 2O2O, Rc.No.1 242lPRtWZt2

27.OL.2(J2O of the 4th resoond ent is extract reu n der: - "I have gone through the revision p3t.itioner and the connected records carefully and minutely. PWs 1, 2,3 and 6 have corroborated the involvement and culpability of the charged officer. The charqed officer had obstructed in the of duties of o lice officers who had discharo interoreted the tractor trollev ancl enabled the escaDe of the driver of the tractor. Incidentallv, the driver is the broth r of the charoed of I Hence, keeping in view of the eviderce adduced, the revision petition is hereby rejected. D The order imouoned C.No.A4l 11/Misc- PR/NRPT 2O22, dated 11.O5.2O 22of the 5th resoondent is extracted hereunder:- Vide referene cited above, the SP, MBNR issued a memo in t/o Sri Ryakamaiah, ARPC.266 of DAR Narayanpet(f) DAR Mahdbubnagar. Tht:refore, you are hereby instructed to cause the service of this memo to the above ARPC.266 and return the Dated l\ck., copy to this office. The Memo vide reference cited is e nr:losed herewith. a"{ 7 SN. J E. The charoe memo No.A 4lO9lMa or-PR/MBN 12fJL7. I ed O1.12. 7a s edb znd r n extra cted hereunde r:- 2 The substance of the imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour in respect of which the enquiry is proposed to be held is setout in the enclosed statement of Article of charge (Annexure-I), a list of documents by which and a list of witnesses by whom, the Article of Charges are proposed to be sustained are also enclosed (Annexure-Il & III).

3. ARPC 266 Sri.Ryakamaiah of DAR, Mahabubnagar is directed to submit with in (10) days oF the receipt of this orders written statement of their defense.

4. ARPC.266 Sri Ryakamaiah of DAR, Mahabubnagar is informed that an enquiry will be held only in respect of those Article of Charges are not admitted. He should therefore specifically admit or deny such articles of charge.

5. ARPC.266 Sri.Ryakamaiah of DAR, Mahabubnagar is further informed that if he do not submit his written statement of defense on or before the date specified in Para 3 of the above, further action will be proceed based on the material available. 6. Attention of ARPC.266 Sri.Ryakamaiah of DAR, Mahabubnagar is invited to Rule 24 of the APCS (CC & A) Rules 1964 under which no Govt. servant shall bring or attempt to bring any political or outside influence to bear upon any superior authority to further his interest in respect of matters pertaining to his service under the Govt. if any representation is received on their behalf from another person in respect of matters dealt within those proceedings, it will be presumed that ARPC.266 Sri.Ryakamaiah of DAR, Mahabubnagar is aware of such representation and that it has been made to his instance and action will be taken against him for violation of Rule 24 of APCS (Conduct) Rules 1964. : 8 ARTICLE OF CHARGE \ SN. ] Exhibition of illegal activities, involvemert in sand case 1)Cr.No.253lU U/s 379 r/w 109 IPC, Sec. 21(1) Mines & Mineral Development and Regulation Act, :-957, Sec.3 of PDPP Act, and 2)Cr.No.254/2017 U/s .i5;3,341 IpC of Mahabubnagar Rural P BASIS OF CHARGE: You are borne on the strength of District Armed Reserve force and working at District Armed Fteserve Force, Mahabubnagar. The SI, Mahabubnagar Rural PS has submitted a report vide C.No.NIL, dt.3.U.2017 against ARPC 266 Sri.Ryakamaiah of DAR, Mahatrr-rbnagar stating that the above ARPC.266 and his brotrr:r are illegally transporting the sand to Mahabubnagar l'rom Koilkonda without any valid license from the concerned authority for their monitory benefits since long time. Further, both picked up quarrel with the men of MahabLrbnagar Rural PS and obstructed to discharge the duties of PC.2536 Sri.V.Sahadev and PC.351 G.Krishnaiah of Mahabubnagar Rural PS and thereby involved in crimina cases vide 1) Cr.No.253/17 Uls 379 r/w 709 IPC, Sec 21(1) Mines & Mineral Development and Regulation Act, 1957, Sec.3 of PDPP Act, and 2) Cr.No.254/2017 U/s 353,341 IPC of Mahabubnagar Rural PS. Thus, you have exhibited illegal acti!ity; involved in criminal cases vide 1) Cr.No.253/17 U/s 379 r/w 109 IPC, Sec.21(1) Mines & Mineral Developmen: and Regulation Act, 1957, Sec.3 of PDPP Act, and 2) Cr.No.254/2017 U/s 353,341. IPC of Mahabubnagar Rural PS dt.30.06.2017, being a member of disciplinary force, mace involving moral turpitude and unbecoming the member of police force and also violated the rule 3 of APCS conduct Rules 1964. 9 SN. J F. The relevant portion of the conclusion arrived at in the disciolinarv Droceedinq N o.44 o5/Maior-PR l2OL7- 19, dated 24. 7.2OLg of the 2"d resoondent s extracted hereunder:- explanation oF CO and connected records. As the explanation of the delinquent is not convincing, he is awarded the punishment "PPI for one year without effect on future increments and pension" under rule 2L(4) of APCS (CC&A) Rules 1991, the suspension period from 19.08.2017 to 31.12.2017 (134 -days) is treated as "NOT ON DUTY", G The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the da fc and in nrrlirr rlr r Ittr,,e Nos.2 9to 1) ara n n hereu nder: - But it "2. It is respectFully submit that there is no dispute with regard to the selection of petitioner as ARPC and DAR, Mahabubnagar district on appointment is not correct that the petitioner 20.08.199s. discharged duties with utmost satisfaction to his superiors ntment, the and without any complaints. Since .his ao Detitioner was awarded the followinq oenalties for his unsatisfa ctorv work while discharq ino duties bv . l CENSURE vide DO No.210211995, dated 16.10.1995. PPI for one year without effect vide DO 939 / 2003, dated 05.06.2003. PPI for one year vide DO.No.109/2005, dated 19.01.2005. Later the penalty set aside subsequently. t0 SN. J PPI for one year without efFect DO.No.2O27 /2005, dared 16.1 r.2OO5. PPI for one year without effect DO.No. 1812/2009, dated OB.0 /.2009. 9-72. It is respectfully submit Urat, the criminal ed acquittal due to turned hosti e by the pws.3 cases end 4, 5 only. The DurDose of deoartmental enouirv and Dros ecution are two different and dis inct asoects. The crim inal rosecutio n is lau nched for an offen ce for violation ofd the offender owes to the so ietv or breach of which law has rovide offender shall make satisfactionto the Du blic. The refore. crrme is an act of com tssr tnv ation ofl wor omission of oublic dutv The d oartmenta I enouirv is to maintain discioli ne in th ffici nc of Transoort Co scc. ron., Vs Mohd. Yousu f Miva. ( L997t 2 The Peti tione r war riq htlv pu nished. otM na er P Sta D The Petitioner was facing criminal ct:;es and parallel departmental proceedings during tht: period from 30.06.2077 till issue of final orders award ng ,ppl one year with effect vide DO.No.79B/20I9, dated 2 7.2Ttg inctuding the period oF completion currency of the penalty so awarded he was not eligible for promotion as per Order No.74 of TSPM Part-I along with his batch nates who were otherwise eligible. As such, the petitione - no \ /ay eligible for getting notional seniority along with batch mates. As the delinquency of the petitioner in tioner in the departmental enquiry PROVED beyond all reasonable grounds. It is submitted that petitioner exh.!usted his final departmental remedy of Revision v de proceedings dated.27.7.2020 i.e., disposed of revisior by Inspector General of Police, !1/est Zone, Hyderabad. r--he present writ petition is filed again more than 3 years and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the crlunds of delays and caches. v SN. J In view of the above said facts and circumstances it is prayed that the Hon'ble High Court of ludicature may be pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition as it is devoid of merits as enunciated. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:-

5. Learned counse! appearing on behalf of the petitioner submats that vide verdict of the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and Excise at Mahabubnagar, dated O2.O5.2O19 in C.C.No.358 ot 2OL7, the petitioner was found not guilty for the offences registered against the petitioner under Section 379 IPC and Section 21(i) of MM Act (Development and Regulation Act, Sec.3 of PDPP Act) and consequently, the petitioner got acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P'C. and vide verdict of the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and Excise at Mahabubnagar, dated O2.O5.2O19 in C.C.No.359 of 2Ot7, the petitioner was found not guilty for the offences registered against the IPC and petitioner under Sections 34L & 353 consequently, the petitioner got acquatted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. t2 r\ SN. J

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the above two criminal cases registered against the petitioner had been the basis for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and the same is evident from the charge memo, dated 01.12.2017 issued by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner anitiatang disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petationer submits that in view of the fact of clear acquittal of the petitioner in the above two criminal cases, hence, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner and the punishment imposed in the said disciplinary proceedings after the conclusion of tlre disciplinary enquiry needs to be set-aside.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that though the petitioner had been acquitted from the criminal cases vide verdict of the of the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prohabition and Excise at Mahabultnagar, dated O2.O5.2O19 in C.C.No.358 ot 2Ot7 and verdict of the of the a?r/ ,4 l:i SN. J Court of the Special Judicia! Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and Excise at Mahabubnagar, dated O2.O5.2O19 in C.C.No.359 ot 2OL7, without considering the same, the order impugned had been passed by the 2nd respondent on 24.O7.2019 imposing the punishment on the petitioner.

9. A bare perusal of the order impugned, dated 24.07.2019 of the 2nd respondent indicates that the Superintendent of Police, Mahabubnagar after going through the article of charge and explanation submitted by the petitioner herein came to conclusion that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not convincing and awarded the punishment "PPI for one year without effect on future increments and pension under rule 21(4) of APCS (CC &A) Rules, 1991, the suspension period from

19.08.2017 to 31.12.2OL7 i.e., 134 days is treated as "Not on Duty".

10. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector Genera! of Police, Nizambad Range/3'd respondent and the said order was J t4 sN.l not set-aside, duly taking into consideration the verdict of the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and Excise at Mahabubnagar in two criminalcasesregisteredagainstthepetitionerdated 02.05.2019 in C.C.No'358 of 2O17 and dated 02'05'2019 in C.C.No.359 of 2Ot7, and mechan'cally reiected the appeal preferred by the petitioner on O6'11'2O19' holding that the acquattal of the petitioner in the said cases do not exempt to the petitioner from facing punishment of the disciplinary proceedings, since the subject issue involved in Moral Turpitude of the petitioner' since the petit'oner associated himself with illegal transportinE of sand' and the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the 4th respondent against the impugned proceedings' dated 05.11.2019 of the 3'd respondent.and the 4th respondent vide proceedings, dated 27'O1'202O mechanically' without applacation of mind confirmed the orders passed by the 3'd ll,3and6had respondent, holding that the PWs 1 culpabilitY of the corroborated the involvement and petitioner. .l SN, J

11. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the review petition before the 5th respondent and the 5th respondent vide the impugned proceedings, dated 11.05.2022 rejected the same without assigning any reasons except stating that the representation to set_ aside the penalty of ..ppl for one year without effect on future increment and pension,, stands rejected.

12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is entifled for the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition, rn vtew o the simole fact th t the two a al t h d e !n r I t c the oetitioner ndt punished. re, the oetitioner nnot be

13. Learned Assastant Government pleader for Services Home appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents in I I i r6 SN. J partacular para Nos.g to 12 (referred to and extracted above) contends that the departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service, mere acquittal in the criminal cases cannot be the ground for holding the departmenta! proceedings as vitiated and punishment imposed against the petitioner is right and cannot be interfered with, hence, the petitioner is not eligible for getting any benefit of notional seniority along with petitioner's batch mates since the departmental enquiry is proved beyond all reasonable grounds and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. L4. A bare perusal of the relevant portion of the judgment, dated O2.O5.2O19 in C.C.No.358 of 2O17 and dated 02.05.2019 in C.C.No.359 of 2OL7 registered against the petitioner before the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of Farst Class, Prohibition and Excise at Mahabubnagar, clearly indicates that the petitioner had been found not guilty for the offences registered against the petitioner and consequently, the petitioner had been acquatted in both the criminal cases and the said order Y t7 SN. J had been placed before the respondents herein, the respondents without considering the same had issued the impugned orders, dated 24.07.2019 by the znd respondent, dated 06.11.2019 by the 3'd respondent, dated 27.OL.2O2O by the 4th respondent and on LL.O5.2O22 by the sth respondent upholding the punishment of "PPI for one year without effect on future increment and pension and the suspension period from

19.08.2017 to 31.12.2OL7 4.e., 134 days is treated as "Not on Duty.

15. The observations of the Apex Court in few iudqments n u m n f Divisi n Ben h considerinq the sustainabilitv of punishment imposed on an emolovee concerned in case of Departmental nrnraadinnc end rr minal nr aaaAi nrac hai rr.r hrcad nn tha same Set olfacts are extracted hereunder:- A) The Apex Court, in the iudqment of "G.M. Tank vs. fGu arat & Ors. ort din 2006 4 dated 1O.Os .2006 held that if the charqes in the identica! to those in the disciolinarv oroceed tn o s a / Itt SN. J crimina! case, and t e emDlovee has been honourablv acouitted in the crimina! case, then conti n disciolinarv oroceedi qs on the same charqes would not be iustifie and the relevant Daraqrao h Nos.3O and 31 of the said order are extracted hereunder: 3O. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents are distingulshable on facts and on law. In this case, the departmental oroceedinos and the crimi nal case are based on identica I and similar set of facts a nd the charqe inade artm ea ainst th a ellant and the charqe before the crimin al court are one and the same. It is true that the nature of charge in the departmental proceedings and in the crirrinal case is grave. The nature of the case launched against the appellant on the basis of evidence ancl material collected against him during enquiry and investigation and as reflected in the charge-sheet, factors mentioned are one and the same. In other worcs, charges, evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and the same. In the present case, criminal and departmental proceedings have already noticed or grarted on the same set of facts, namely, raid condu:ted at the appellant's residence, recovery of article:; therefrom. The Investigating Offlcer Mr V.B. Rava and other departmental witnesses were the onl\/ witnesses examined by the enquiry officer who by -elying upon their statement came to the conclusic)n that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case and the criminal court on the examination came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the guilt alleged against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant by its judicial pronouncement with the finding that the charge has not been proved. It is also to be noticed that the iwlicial pronou[eemert u{irs made after a T t9 SN''. J reoular trial and on h t contest. Under these circumstances, at would be uniust and unfair and rather oDDressive to allow the findinos recorded in the deDartmental Droceedinqs to stand.

31. In our opinion, such facts and evidence in the departmental as well as criminal proceedings were the same without there being any iota of difference, the appellant should succeed. The distinction which is usually proved between the departmental and crimlnal proceedings on the basis of the approach and burden of proof would not be applicable in the instant case. Though the finding recorded in the domestic enquiry was found to be valid by the courts below, when there was an honourable acquittal of the employee during the pendency of the proceedings challenging the dismissal, the same requires to be taken note of and the decision in Paul Anthonv case [(1999) 3 SCC : 1999 SCC 7 ihara t r a aooellant deserves to be allowed." hol A th Atthea L&S 81 t ilod hrl B) The Aoex Court, in the I udo ment dated

30.03.199 reoorted in (1999) 3 SCC 579 in M.Pau! in oarticular. at Anthonv Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. Daraqraph No.34 observed as under:

34. There is yet another reason for discarding the whole of the case of the respondents. As pointed out earlier, the criminal case as also the deDartmental Droceedjngs were based on identical set of facts, namel y, 'the raid conducted at the appellant's residence and recovery of incriminating articles therefrom.' The findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, a copy of which has been placed before us, indicate that the charges framed against the appellant were sought to be proved by Police Officers and Panch witnesses, who had raided the house of the appellant and had effected recovery. They were the only witnesses ) 20 SN. J examined by the Inquiry Officer and the Inquiry Officer, relying upon their statements, came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the crimiral case but the court, on a consideration of the entire evlCence, came to the conclusion that no search was conducte,J nor was any recovery made from the residence of the appellant. The whole case of the Drosecution was thrown ut and the appellant was acouitted. In this siturtion , therefore, where the appellant is acquitted b'/ a judicial pronouncement with the finding that the "raid and recovery" at the residence of the appr:l ant were not proved, it would be unjust, unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded at the ex- parte departmental proceedings, to stand. The ADex Court, in the iudoment dated O4.12.2O23 c) reoorted in (20241 1 SCC 175 n "Ramlal Vs. State of an and othe in oarticular, DaraqraDh Nos.28 and 29 obse ed as under:

28. Exoresston like "benefit of doubt" and "honourablv acouitted", used in iudq ments are not to be und erstood as maqic incantataons. A court of law will not be carried awa bvthem ere use of such terminoloov. In the present case, the Appellate Judge has recorded that Ext. P-3, the rlriginal mark sheet carries the date of birth as 2l-4-1972 and the same has also been proved by the witnes;es examined on behalf of the prosecution. The conclusion that the fter full acquittal in the criminal considera tion of the orosecu tion evidence a d that the prosecution misera lv failed to, Drove the charqe can only be arrived at after a read ino of the in its entiretv. The Cou iudq ment oft he review i obtioed to examtn e the substa iudqmen and not qo bv the form oI exoression used. roceedinq was n 2t SN. J

29. We are satisFied that the findings of the Appellate Judge in the criminal case clearly indicate that the charge against the appellant was not just, ,'not proved,, - in fact the charge even stood'.disproved,,by the very prosecution evidence. As held by this Court, a fact is said to be "disproved" when, after considering the matters before it, the court either believes that it does not e xist or con iders its non-e istence so Dro clrc mstanc s of the oarticu Iar case, to act DOn the suDDosi tion th t it doesnote xist. A fact is said to be "not proved" when it is neither '.proved,, nor "disproved" (see Vijayee Singh v. State of tJ.p. lVijayee Singhv. State of U.p., (1990) 3 SCC 190 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 37Bl ). ao rudent man ouoht. D) The Division Bench iudqme tofth is Cou A.P.S.R.T.C. vs. T.Ve nkata DatI reDo d in 1999(1) A.P .L.J. 189 HC), iN W.A.No.t24 of 1999. dated 04.o2.19 99 is extracted hereunder:-

1. The writ petitioner was prosecuted for alleged offence of murder of his wife. The death of the wife of petitioner took place on 25th of February, 1996. The petitioner was working as Depot Controller at Srikalahasti Depot of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport ,Corporation (For short the 'R.f.C'). A prosecution was initiated against ihe petitionei'after registration of crime. In the mean while the department initiated departmental proceedings on the following charge "For having involved in a criminal case of alleged killing on 25-2-1996 which has resulted in framing climinal case against you as Crime No. 30 of 1996 undeisec. 302 of the Indian Penat Code (I. p.C) by Muthyatareddypalli police station which amounts misconduct under Sec.'29 (xxxi) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees Conduct Regulations, 1963.,, I 22 SN. J r m t in itiate I in S.C.No.

2. The criminal orosecutio ended i ol L997 before the learned Iv Additional Sess Judqe, Tiruo thi bv iudoment dated 8-8-1 997. The said acq iftal has becom d isciolin a rv uthoritv in the deoartmental -e nout rv, uoon comoletion of the enouirv oassed orders on 28- 11-1996 removino the Detitioner from ervice. Th Detitioner Dreferred aooeal aqainst the said order. The sam was dismissed. The revlew petition was also dismissed bv the Reoional Manaqer of theR.T.C. Asa result, the oetitioner filed the writ pet tion to challenoe the order of his removal. final. Howev

3. The learned Single Judge held that 1 the disciplinary authority was in error in holding the petitic ner guilty of the charge framed against him in disciplinarl' proceedings in view of the judgment of the Court. The petitioner- delinquent was entitled to be cleared of the charge in disciplinary enquiry and accordingly a lowed the writ petition. inal case and the said invo

4. Challenging the order of the learned s.ingle ludge, the R.T.C. has filed this Writ Appeal. We finc no merit in the appeal inspite of the persuasion of the learned counsel for the appellant-R.T.C. We have already printed out as to what charge was framed in the disciplinarT enquiry against the petitioner. It has to be noted that tht: charge was not for the substantive act of having caused (leath of the wife. The cha roe was onlv that oetitioner was involved in nt had resu lted in framinq of a criminal case for offence under Section 3O2 of the I.P.C. The argument of the learned counset for the appellant is that in course of the enquiry the petitioner had himself stated that death of his wlfe was result of his delinquency. It is argued that in view of this admission of the petitioner the disr:iplinary authority was justified in accepting the same and Court cannot reappreciate the evidence. We fail to und3rstand as to how the statement of petitioner was relevan': in the instant ha rqe was onlv for involvement in a case. The 23 SN, J t. ended n acoul result ino in institutinq of a crimin al criminal cas ioner. As soon as the criminal case aoa inst the Deti case tself was fbund to be untenab le in Cou ft of law, the verv basis of the cha rqe was knocked out. The charoe should have been ouas hed as nd whe the Invo lvement ana crim ina I ca crim inal case which was not tenable in Court of law can hardlv amount to anv delinou ncv. It cannot be led to hold O disputed that the disciplinary authority is entit is before a disciplinary enquiry on the same charge as nary enquiry Criminal Court because the scope of discipli and a criminal trial is different. But where the charge in the disciplinary enquiry is necessarily dependent 5 on the result of the criminal case if the criminal case itself ends in favour of the delinquent, the charge in the disciplinary enquiry will become unsustainable one. In the facts and circumstances of the case having regard to the charge framed against the petitioner and having regard to the result oF ihe criminal case, we have no manner of doubt that the learned single Judge was right in allowing the petitioner's claim.

16. This Court opines that in view of the fact as borne on record and as clearly indicated in the charge memo, dated OL.L2.2OL7 issued to the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police, Mahabubnagar that petit'oner exhibited illegal activity and involved in criminal cases vide Cr.No.253 of 2Ot7 and Crime No'25412Ot7 Mahabubnagar, Rural PS, dated 30.06.2OL7 being a member of disciplinary force involving moral turpitude and sance the same had been the very basis to initiate disciplinary proceedings and as soon as the criminal cases f ( 24 SN. J ended in an acquitta! the very basis of the charge framed against the petitioner had been knocked out, thas Court is ol the firm view that since petitioner,s alleged involvement in the criminal cases was hetd as not tenable in Court of law, the same cannot be the ground for imposing punishment in the disciplinary proceedings by the disciplinary Authority. L7. In view of the fact that the Detitioner had been aco uitted in the criminal cases, this Court ooine s hat the charoe in the disciolinarv Droce edinos w uns u sta ina ble one.

18. This Court ooines that o uasr udicia I Authorities in d ischa rqe of their duties are bound to act iudiciall v and mechani rn a cas ual manner without aDol ication of mind. The Aoex Court in the iudoment reoorted in ( o10) 9 scc 49 6 in Kranti Associates Private Limited & An her v. under: ed Khan rs at r 47 7 25 SN. J Para 47 holds: Summarising the above discussion, this Court (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtuatty become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and ev.en by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in ail countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This ) 26 S\. J is virtuatty the tifeblood of judicial tle:cision - ma king justifying the principle that reason is the soul of iLtstice' (i) Judicial or even quasi-iudicial opinions these days can be as different as the iudges and authorities who detiver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been obiectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the iustice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber-stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a va I id decision - ma ki ng Process. (m) It cannot be doubted that tritnsparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse ot' judicial powers' Transparency in decision-making not c'nly makes the judges and decision-makers less prone tct errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision- making, 27 SN. J (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons, for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of ,,due process". In the Dresent ca rd, the orders imouo ned do not have anv reasonable admittedlv as borne on iustification. 19 This Court ooines that the oeti tot ner is entitled for the relief as oraved for bv the oetitioner in the Dresent Writ Petition, and the resoo ndents are bound to consider uest of itioner m tion, dated 13.02.2 O23 addressed etition r to the reoresen Deoutv Ins or General of Police Mahabubnaoar throuoh Suoerintendent of Police. Narava n et. which had been eVEn acknowledoed bv the said office seekinq romotion H stable n titioner' batch mates w.e.f. 29.03.2 O18 in the oromotio cateqorv i.e.. AR Hea Constable needs to be considered in accordance to law bv the respondents.

20. Takino n consideration: - 28 SN. J a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitionr:r and learned Assistant Government pleader for Services Home appearing on behalf of the respondents. c) The order impugned No.A4l05/Major-pr/2Ot7-1-9, DO.No.798l2O19, dated 24.07.2019 of the 2"d respondent. (referred to and extracted above) d) The relevant portion of the rlrder impugned R.O.No.943l2O19, Rc.No.886/Dt-4t/HR/ZOL9, dated 06.11.2019 of the 3',r respondent. (neferred to and extracted above) e) The relevant portion of the order impugned Rc.No.1242lPR/WZ/2019, dated 4th respondent. (referred to and R.O.No.21,/ 202O,

27.O1.2O2O of the extracted above) f) The order impugned C.No.A4/LL/Misr:-pR/NRpT /2OZZ, dated 11.O5.2022 ol the 5th respondent. (referred to and extracted above) 7 I I I i I l i i I i 29 S\. J 9) The charge memo No.A4l09/Major-PR/MBNR/2017, dated O1.12.2017 issued by the 2nd respondent (referred to and extracted above) h) Charge framed against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings No.A4lO5/Maior-PR/2OL7-19, dated 24.07.2019 of the 2nd respondent (referred to and extracted above) i) The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and in particular para Nos.2, 9 to 12 (referred to and extracted above) j) The judgments of the various Courts(referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below:- ORDER WP.No.15961 of 2023 ALLOWING THEi WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \ r\ \r., "(