V Raohavulu. S/o. Late V.Naravana v. The Government of Telangana

HON'BLE SRI JIISTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 17L70 0F 2019 ORDER: Petitioner - Sub-Inspector of Police was issued a charge memo alleging affixed a previous that on 12.11.2OO7 , he fraudulently dated arrival stamp of 12.01.2005 in the passport of Sri D. Venkateshwarlu, at the Immigration counter so as to conceal his overstayed period for which passenger ts stated to have paid US $300 (equivalcnt to Rs. 1O,000/ -) This fraudulent'act came to light when the passenger was denied entry at George Bush International Airport, Houston, Texas in Juiy 2OO9 and was deported back to lndia. Petitioner denies the charges leveled against him and asserts that no wrongdoing took place. He contends that a regular enquiry was conducted into the charges, during u'hich he rcquested the Enquiry Officer to provide documents supporting the allegations and CCTV footage from the time of the alleged incident to disprove the charges. However, the Enquiry Of[rcer ignored these requests lt is claimed that prosecution did not produce key evidence, such as the passport of complainant or A3 verification stamp during the enquiry, despite specific requests. According to petitioner, 2 C) the stamp in question dated 2005 was not in his r;ustody at the relevant timc, as the design of stamps at the airport changes frcquently. I Ie statcs that it was highlf improbzrble for him to have used 2O05 stamp and altered the date from 2OO7 to 2OO5. Furthermore , tht' stamp or its soft copy \ ras not seized by the authorities, and the enquiry did not address; whether the material was scnt to a forensic laboratory. Petitioner highlights the fact that imnrigrert.ion process for passengers takes only a few minutes, u, ith many passengers passing lhrough the immigration counter daily, all under strict CCTV surveillance. Given this, he assert s that iL rvould have been irnpossible to conduct an., fraudult:nt transaction wilhout Cetection. The trr-rquiry O ificer's own admission in cross examination conhrmcd that it wzrs not possible to aller the st.rrnp duc to the prcsence ol CCTV camcras. Petitioner claims Lhat r-ro CCTV footage or ei.idencc was presented linking him to Lhc alleged fraudulent a, rir itics ()r monetan transactions. Irurther, petitioner notes that Sri S. .Jayaram, Inspector of Police reft-'rred to a report by Sri B. Ravinder Reddy, which led to registration of a criminal case on 29.C7.2OO9 under Crime No. 35i9 of 2OO9, charging petitioner under Sections 42O, I I o ) 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (lPC)' However, the enquiry did not present any incriminating evidence against him' Petitioner asserts that the entire enquiry was conducted with a biased approach, with no independent corroborative witness supporting the department's claims. Moreover, the department failed to call the passenger in question, as a witness during the enquiry, despite his request; this omission was a violation of natural justice and denied him a fair opportunity to defend himself. If the passenger had been summoned and examined, his innocence would have been proven, contends petitioner' Petitioner further asserts that the trnquiry Officer failed to consider that the ofircer on duty at the immigration counter undergoes a thorough check and inventory of personal belongings, including cash; at the time of inventory, his personal cash was Rs. 210/- and no excess cash was found in his possession and the Enquiry Ofhcer did not otrjectively assess the available evidence and failed to take l.nto account admissions made by witnesses during cross-examination, which proved that petitioner was not at fault. No direct or reliable evidence was presented to support the charge of illegal gratification. The allegations regarding $30O payment for f 4 r\ changing th e date stif mp are based solely on suspicion and probabilities. He therelore, made a detailed representation to the disciplirrary authoritv, highlighting the lapses in the cnquiry and failure to consider critical evidence that would have exoneraled him. Despite this, the disciplinary authority b1, order d:rted 2i1.O8.201b imposed punishment of "RTSP" lbr two stages, effective fr,.rm 23.O8.2016, which impacted his future increments :ind pension. Additionally, suspensi,rn period from 2'2.O3.2O10 to 09.O7.20 l0 was treated :rs "Not on Duff," which pctitionr:r. claims is unjust and disproportion ate, especially considr:r'ing r he lack of cvidence to support the charges [)etitioner further contends that departmental enquln/ rl'as condu<:ted prematurely, without awaiting the outcom( of the penrling criminal case against him. He was charged under the same allegations in a criminal case, registcrr'd as Crime No. 359 of 2OO9 for the ,tffences under Section 12O. 468, 47 | of IPC on the file of P(l RGI Airport, Shamshabarl on 3O.O7.2009 u,hich remained pending at the time of the dcpartmental enquiry. He states that llnquiry Olficer acted hastilv. leading to an unjust conclusion wir.hout adequate time for pcr itioner to defend himself. He c],lims that the 5 o disciplinary authority did not adequately consider the grounds raised by him, relying solely on the Enquiry Ofhcer's report when imposing the punishment and it shows lack of application of mind by the authonty. Furthermore, the disciplinary authorit5r did not treat the period of suspension as duty, which had a detrimti:ntal effect on the petitioner's career and income. It is stated, petitioner filed Appeal on O4.O7.2O17, challenging the punishment imposed on him, but received no response from the authorities. In the meantime, the 3rd responderlt issued Proceedings

25.07.2017, which stated that his pay was reduced to Rs. 58,330/- from 23.O8.2016 to 22.O8.2O18, and that excess pay and allowances during this period might be recovered. It is asserted that punishment is unjust. as it was imposed without material evidence and with a failure to follow fair procedures. Petitioner also points out that criminal case against him, which involved the same charges as the departmental case, conclr-ded with his acquittal on O2.O4.2O79. He therefore, submitted detailed representation on 06.05.2019, but no action has been taken thereon. According to petitioner, despite being fully 6 t-: (') eligible for pro motion to the rank of inspector frorrL 0 I . l'2.2017 , the same n,as rlenir:d dtu: to the ongoing penalty. 2 Lcarnecl counsel Sri M.V. Krishna Mohan reiterated the contt'ntiorrs raised in the affidavit and s;lrbmits that inference drau n u.as based on presumptions, which contravcne the principle thaL susprcion cannot replace proof, as upheld by the Hon'ble Supremc Court in Union of India u. HC Goell . According to rinr, disciplinary authority failed tc, exercise its authorit]'objcltil,clv, as it relicd on past records arrrl thc grzrvity of the allcgcd misconduct, rathcr than on crediblc. cvidence. Earlier, Jretitioncr 1lled Writ Pctition No. 28384 ol '2O17 challcnging llrt: ordcr dated 23.08.2016, which imposed a penalty ol "R.l'S.I"' for tu'o stages for a period of two 1,ears, affecting ['rturi increments and pension. This Cout t disposed of the said Writ Petition, directing respondent to considcr petitioner's.rpneal rrg:ritrst the penally, hou,ever, the Appeal was rejected bv ordcr dated 25.O5.2018, confirming the penalt1,. Petitioner contends that thc order passed by the appellatc authority \.as not reasoned and should, therefore, bo set asirle. ' AIR 1964 sc 36.1 ':. c) 7

3. Respondents in their counter stated that petitioner was placed under suspension on 2O-O3-2O|O following a report from the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad dated 22- l2-2OO9 for his alteged invoivement in affixing a backdated arrival stamp (12-01-2005) on passport of Sri D. Venkateshwarlu, to conceal his overstay in the United States, accepting US $300 for this act. The alleged offense came to light in July 2OO9, after the passenger was denied entry to the United States due to the fraudulent stamp. In that regard, a case was booked in Cr.No.359 of 2OO9 on the file of Airport Police Station for the offences under Sections 42O,468, and 471IPC. Subsequently, he was released on anticipatory bail, consequently, was releascd from suspension on O9-O7 -2OlO. Following the procedure under Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classihcation, Control and Appeal) Rules, 199 1 , enquiry was conducted duly supplying the documents, and he did not request the CCTV footage at the start of the enquiry, despite being provided the opportunity to do so under Rule 20 (5)(f). The enquiry was conducted in accordance with the Rules and petitloner was provided reasonable opportunities to defend himself. The Inquiring Authority found the charge to be 8 r-, "PROVED.' basecl on documentary and oral evidt-'nce, including thc fact that the petitioner was on duty during the relevant time and was r:sponsibk: lor stamping thc passport with the incorrec. dat,. It is also stated, on 23-08-2016, petitioner was penalizerl with a redut:tion in his time scale of pal, by two stages for a period o[ tu.o ycars, effective on future increments and pension. Fur-thcrmore, lhe penod of suspensiort from 22 (o3- 20 I O to 09.0'7-201O \4.as treated as "Not on Duty." The petitioner u'a s nolifie cl oi this decision, and the pay reduction was implementcd, u,ith his sa1ary reduced to Rs. 58,330/- ior thc periocl lrom 23-08 2016 Lo 22 O8-2O18 by pro,:eedings dated 25 O7-2(t17. Al-ter completing the punishment, his pay was restored to Rs. (r1,45Ol- effective from 23-O8-201E. Aggricvecl thereby, petitioner hled Appeal on 06-07 2077, bttt tlrr: (]ovcrnment, in its Memo datect 28-04 2018, re..;ccted the sarne. In response, petitioner subntitted another represent:r tion on O6 OS 20 19, requesting the Government to se1 asidc the punrshnrent. However, the Governrnent, through Memo dated 06 08 2019, rcjected the revision petition and 9 a upheld the original decision and communicated the decision to petitioner on 31-O8-20 i9 Regarding petitioner's etigibility for promotion, it is stated that the Deputy Inspector General of Po1ice, Hyderabad Range, is the competent authority for promotions to the rank of Inspector of Police. However, as per the relevant rules, an officer must have a clean track record and a minimum of six years of service to be eligible for promotion. Since petitioner is still under the currency of punishment until 23-O8-2O2O, he is not eligible for promotion as per the existing rules. Respondents emphasize that criminal and departmental proceedings can run simultaneously, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments, includrng JVE SOIV MOTIS a. lJnion oJ India2, Ajit Kumar Nag u. General Manager (Pj), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.s, Pandigan Roaduags Corpn. Ltd. u. N. Bolakrishnc,na, Noida Entrepreneurs Association u. Noidas, Rann Tauekga 'AIR 1992 SC 1981 12OOs (71 SCC 764 '2OO7 (91 SCC 755 5 2OO7 (l}l SCC 385 l0 \r Shrrnn<: u. Sta.te of Bihaf , and Roop Singh Negi u. Punjab National Bank7. Respondents assert that petitioner was duly provided opport ur.tities to defencl himself and discipJinary action taken u as in accordance with the Rules and Regulations governing tht: service. Petitioner's claims are false and that disciplinary proccedings were conducted in strict accordance n ith the 1 99 I Rules. The punishment \ .as imposed based on the prepondcrance of evidence, and there was no error in the proccss.

4. Li:arned Governmcnt Plcader for Servjces (Home) justrfying thc actior-r done by the respondents, requests that Writ Petition rnay bc dismissed. .) A c:rreful examinalion of pleadings :rnd material placed be lrrrc tl-ris Court makes it clear that petitioner was issued r:harge memo alleging that on 12. | 1 .2OO7 , he fraudulcntll, afflxecl a previous-dated arrival stamp of 12.OL.2OOS in lhc passport of Sri D_ Venkateshr.t.arlu, at the Immigration ( oLrnter so as Lo conceal his overstavr:cl period for which passcnser is statcd to have paid US $30O (()(tuivalent to '2008 (8) SCC 2rj1 12OO9 (2) SCC s70 d Rs. 10,000/-). Respondents conducted enquiry after issuing show cause notice and considering the explanation submitted thereto and found the charge as proved and accordingly, imposed the punishment impugned. petitioner,s main contention is that the charge of affrxing a back_dated arrival starnp on passenger,s passport is not substantiated by reliable evidence and respondents failed to examine the material witness Sri D. Venkateshwarlu during the enquiry ald they did not give any opportunity to defend his case which is nothing but violation of principles of natural justice. Further, it is alleged that CCTV footage was also not provided. per contra, respondents have explained that petitioner did not specihcally request CCTV footage during the enquiry, despite being given the opportunity to do so under the Rules. Additionally, it is stated that passenger was not examined because he was not available and his non-examination did not invalidate the proceedings, as petitioner was given ample opportunities to present his case. In view of the same, it is to be held that Enquiry Officer's findings were based on the available evidence and there is no merit in petitioner,s claim that the enquiry was conducted in a biased or unfair manner. t2 h Arrolher contention of learned counsel for petitioner 6 that punishnrcnt imposed is disproportionate js also not persuasivc [or. reduction in thc time sca]e of pay by two stages for a period of tu,o vcars is a penalty prescribed .under the Rules for serious rnisconduct. Since this Court hnds that pcnalff was imposed :rfter due considcration of trnquiry Ofhcer's report and the available t:vidence, the punishment cannot trc said to be unjust or disproportionate to the alleged miscondu,:l .

7. llr gzrrclir-rg petitioner's claim of acquittaL in criminal case, it is ilnp()rLant to noLe that departmental prc,ceedings and criminal trial operates under different standards of proof. The object of crimjnal trial is to inflict approprlate punishment on the offender, u l-rrle the purpose o[ cnqurry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to imposr: pcnalf in accordanr:e rvith the service rules. In a crirninal trial, incriminating statement made by the accuse<l in certain circumstance s or before certain ofhcers is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedurc would not apply to depzrrtmental proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different fronr the one to record commrssion of delinquency. The rule relating to 13 (1 appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar.Incriminallaw,burdenofproofisonthepros.ecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt, he cannot be convicte.d by a Court of law. In a departmental enquiry, on the other hand' penalty can be imposed on the delinquent ofhcer on a hnding recorded on the basis of preponderance of probability ln this case' was acquitted in Criminal Case as failed to prove the guilt of accused prosecution miserablY beyond all reasonable doubt by adducing cogent evidence' Upon is also stated to have submitted on 06.05.2019 requesting the respondent acquittal, Petltloner admittedlY, Petltroner representation authoritiestosetasidethepenalty.Thesaidrepresentatlonwas rejected uide order dated 06.08.2019 and the same was In this context, the judgments relied on communicated to him by learned Government Pleader support the case of respondents. In the light of the same' it cannot be said that acquittal in criminal case would be of help to consider the case of petitioner PositivelY. As regards the contention of petitioner - that plnishment imposed would have adverse impact on his future I , I I € 7, t4 h promotlons is conccrned, as stated in the counter, thc Deputy Inspector General of policc, Hyderabad Range is the compe tent authoritv to l)r()mote olficers lrom the rank of SI t(:ivil) and also to consider / access their eligibility for promotion, horrvever, as per Rules, an1. SI rvl.r o had put in six years of service is eligiblc for promrttion provided he should have clear track record. In the rnstant case, as could tle seen from the counter, ltetitioner is still under c,-lrrencv of punishment up to 23.O.8.202O u,hich shows Lhat h,. i5 ,-ln, havrng good track record wltich conles in the r,r'ay r [ ] r is lu rt her promot ion . 9 totality of T:r king in to consideration clrcumstances. narrated supra, this disciplinary pr-or:ecdi'rgs against petitioner was (io.ducted accordanc.e u.ir I-r the Rules and Regulations and tht: findings of thc Enqu; 11 O lficer s.ere: supported by strfficient <.vidence. The Writ Petition, in thc opinion of this Court, is Iiablc to be Court llnds that dismissed

10. Thc Writ t,etition is accordingly, disrnissed. No l5 o To, TJ BS 11 Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/-P. CH. NAGABHUS AMBA DEPUTY E STRAR SECTION FFICER / One CC to Sri R. Anurag, Advocate [OPUC] One.CC to Sri M.V. Rama Rao (SPL GOVT PLEADER)) [OPUC] Two CD Copies 1 2 3 $ \ I 1 l I , HIGH COURT DATED:1 310312025 ORDER WP.No.17170 of 2019 1 s STAT5 o l)lr \; \\ -" \'' 0? I'rl 2[25 i \\-_1 )r'i t ':'/' DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Gj-+18 *{;-