K. Sudhakar Reddy v. consequently direct the

Order

Heard Sri Ch. Ravinder, learned counse! appearing on behalf of the petationer and learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of Respondents.

2.P YER The Petitioner a ooroached this Court seeki q the praver as under : "To issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, especially one in the nature oF Writ oF Certiorari calling for the order of punishment declaring the order of punishment imposed vide proceedings DO.No77L7 No.L&O/86/1130/2015-19 dated

05.09.2019 by the 3'd respondent, as confirmed vide proceedings in RC No.601lT2/20t9 dt.10.06.2020 by the 2nd respondent and further confirmed vide Memo No.91B7lSer.II/At/2020 dt.O7.07.2021 by the 1't respondent as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 and 16 of constitution of India and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant service and SN, ] \?P Nr 24116 2022 monitory benefits to the - petitioner and pa; ; such other order... " -\ \u

3. The case f the Petitioner as er the aver ments made bv the oetitioner in the affidavit filed bv the_ oetitioner in supoort of the oresent writ petition in brief arr: asu der: (i) The petitioner was appointed as a Polir: r Constable in 2009 and posted at Kulsumpura Police Station. The, retitioner was placed under suspension from 02.06.2015 to 02.C( .2016. During this period, a false complaint in Crime No.B4l201! ,rras lodged by one Mandeep Singh Maan, against the pet tioner herein implicating the petitioner falsely under Section 3t. , 506 and 149 IPC. This led to C.C. No.B35/2015, in which th() petitioner was honourably acquitted on 01.03.2018, by the r iourt of XVIII Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampa y, Hyderabad holding that no charge against the petitioner was proved and no credible evidence was produced. (ii) It is further the case of the cetitioner that nevertheless, the departmental enquiry contirued, and the Enquiry Officer wrongly held the charge as "prov rd", against the petitioner. On 05.09.2019, the 3rd Respondr: rt imposed the punishment of postponement of increment fc r one year with effect on future increments and pension, anrl the suspension l&. *t ::.. ,i, 5 5N''l wP No.2{316 2022 period was treated as "Not on Duty." The appellate and revisional authoritiesf by orders dated 10.06.2020 and 07.01.2021

respectively, mechanically confirmed the punishment without reasons, Aggrieved by the order impugned of the 3'd respondent, dated 05.09.2019, and also the consequential orders of the Appellate Authority, dated 10.06.2020 and the Revisional Authority, dated 07.01.2021 the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD : (A) The Order i mouoned dated 05.O9. 2019 Dassed 3'd resDon ent D. 3 .No-77t7 No.L&O/86l113O/2O15-19 aoainst the petitioner herein. is extracted hereunder : "Sub: - HYDERABAD CITY POLICE - Departmental Inquiry against Sri K. Sudhakar, PC 5!77 of Kulsumpura PS (f) Begum Bazar PS, Hyderabad - Inquiry completed - Minutes of the IA supplied to the Charged officer - Further representation received - Final Orders - Issued. Read:- 1. This office D.O.No.3838. dt: 02-06-2015 (Suspension).

2. This office memo of even No. dt: 09-06-2016 (Article of charge).

3. His written statement of defence, dt: 22-06-2016. 4. This office proceedings of even No. dt: 23-07-2016 (I.A. appt.). 5. This office D.O.No.8871, dt: 01-09-2016 (release from suspension ). 5 SN,] WP No.24316 2022 ' . .; a\ i, l,

6. Minutes Lr. No.370lOE/ING/2018, dt. 13_08-2018 of Addl.Inspector of police, Narayanguda pS, H /,lerabad. 7. This oFfice Memo of even No. dt. 25-OB_ tOlg (supply of minutes). B. His further representation dt. 14-09_201t. ORDER: Sri K. Sudhakar, pC Sl77 of Kulsumpur. pS (f) Begum Bazar PS, Hyderabad was placed under s rspension vide proceedings 1't read above for exhibiting grr ss misconduct, negligence of duty and irresponsible attitude, inr, tlved himself in a criminal case by extorting an amount of .s. 1000/_ and threatened Sri Vikas Singh Maan, as sU, h a case in Cr.No.84l2015 Uls 384, 506 IpC was register€( against him at Begum Bazar PS. 2. Subsequently an Article of Charge as per Rule 20 of TCS (CC&A) Rules. 1991 was issued to the charged c.ficer, calling for his written statement of defence vide this office memo 2nd iead above on charges that on 19-05-2015 at 17.35 rs, Sri Mandeep Singh Maan S/o Satveer Singh Maan, age 30 , ears r/o Begum Bazar, Hyderabad lodge a complaint wherein he alleged thai Sri K. Sudhakar PC of Begum Bazar regularly cominc t.o his office and threatening him to pay some amount, otherrv se he will book criminal case against him. In this regard, he ; lready met with senior officers and submitted complaint agair s : the pC not to harass him. But surprisingly on 19-5-2015 at atr, ut 3.15 pM Sri K Sudhakar went to his shop and threatened his rrother Sri Vikas Maan for an amount of Rs. 1000/- and when )e expressed his inability to pay, the PC warned and took away n amount of Rs. 1000/-from his brother Sri Vikas Maan. On the a tove complaint a case vide Cr.No.84/2015 U/s 3a4, 506 IpC v as registered at Begum Bazar PS. 3. During the course of investigation whi : examining the witness it was established that on 05-5-2011 Mr. Sharvin @ Sravan a chair repairer lodged a complaint ; qainst Mr. Vikas Maan and his workers for wrongfully restrainir( nim and beating with hands and later on they fled away from the spot. upon whici a case in Cr.No.74/20t5, U/s 147,323,34t, 506 r/w L4g IpC was registered against Mr. Vikas Maan and his /orkers at Begum Bazar PS. Mr Mandeep Singh Maan who is th r brother of Vikas Maan was bought to the PS by Sri K Sudhaka r, t C 5177 of Begum Bazar PS and enquired about his brother, but he r.efused to infbrm and did some galata in the police Station, up cn which a petty case No.178115 Uls 7l CP Act was booked arr et him off. After l'.t' /' 7 sN,l wP No.24316 2022 that on 19-05-2015 at about 3.15 PM Sri K. Sudhakar, PC 5L77 visited the Baba Tent Cloth, met with Mr. Vikas Singh Maan and threatened him to pay Rs.1,000/- otherwise he will send his brother to jail and file charge sheet against him. Thereafter, K. Sudhakar, PC 5t77 has forced Sri Vikas Singh Maan to give him an amount of Rs.1,000/- and Mr. Vikas Singh Maan gave the amount to Sri K. Sudhakar, PC under pressure. While the investigation is in progress on 1-7-2015 Sri K. Sudhakar, PC 5t77 of Begum Bazar PS surrendered before the Hon'ble II AMSI, Hyderabad. Accordingly the Hon'ble Magistrate sanctioned anticipatory bail to him vide Crl.M.P. No.1892 of 2015, wherein the Hon'ble Court directed him to surrender before the Begum Bazar PS within a week from the date this order by duly executing Rs.10,000/- bond with two sureties. As per the orders of the Hon'ble Court Sri K. Sudhakar, PC 5177 surrendered at Begum Bazar PS on 03.07.2015 duly executing the two FDRS of Rs.10,000/- each. The accused Sri K. Sudhakar PC 5177 of Begum Bazar PS was arrested and released on bail bond. After completion oF the investigation, charge sheet has been fleld vide CC No.B35/2015 on the file of the Hon'ble XVII ACMM Court. Accordingly, he has submitted his written statement of defence on denying the allegations levelled against him vide reference 3'd read above. 4. Vide this office proceedings 4th read above, the Addl. Inspector of Police, Narayanguda PS, Hyderabad was appointed as Inquiring Authority under sub-rule (2) of rule 20 of TCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 to conduct the Inquiry. Later, Sri K. Sudhakar, PC 5177 was released from suspension vide this office proceedings 5th read above pending further disciplinary action against him. 5. The Inquiring Authority conducted the inquiry by giving reasonable opportunity to the charged officer Sri K. Sudhakar, PC 5177 to defend himself durlng the inquiry. The Inquiring Authority completed the inquiry and submitted his inquiry findings holding the charge as "Proved" against the charged officers vide reference 6th read above. 6. The inquiry findings of the I.A. were supplied to the charged officer vide this office memo 7rh read above calling for his further representation, if any Sri K. Sudhakar, PC 5177 has submitted his explanation denying the allegations levelled against him and requested to drop further action against him vide reference 8th read above. 7. I have gone through the minutes of the O.E of the charged officer Sri K. Sudhakar, PC 5177 of Kulsumpura PS (f) Begum Bazar PS, Hyderabad carefully and minutely. I fully agree with the a SN,] lVP No 24316 2022 { !i .l . i!.iX findings of the I.A who has held the charge l; proved' The conteitions made by the charged officer are only; n afterthought with an intention to escape from the charges. The charges made out against the charged officer are prov(lr Under the circumitances mentioned above and also the r:" lence adduced during the OE, I hold the charge as PTo\/'! cl and award Sri K. Sudhakar, PC 5177 of Kulsumpura PS (f) tJ' gum Bazar PS, Hyderabad the punishment of "Postponement cf increment for one year with effect on future increments rnd pension". The iuspension period w.e.f., 02.06.2015 t(' 12.09.2016 is treated as "Not on DutY" 8. Certified that the procedure as laid dr) vn in the TCS (CC&A) Rules 1991, have been followed. Anjit ri Kumar, IPS', Commiss roner of Police, l{ /derabad citY." (B) The oroceed inos of the 2td resf ,, rndent herei n The Director of Ge eral of Police T€l rnqana State, t.e Hvd erabad reiecti q the aDDeal oetitio da td 27.O 9.2019 .601 '2t20t9 dated RC t n r b f

10. 6.2020 is extracted ereunder Sri K.Sudhakar, PC 5177 of Kulsumptrt r P'S (f) Begum Bazar P.S. was dealt on a charge under Rulr:-l I of TSCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 for the following delinquency:- Exhibited gross misconduct negligen': : of duty and irresponsibG attitude, involved himself ir criminal case by e*toiting an amount of Rs.IOOO/- and thr )atened Sri Vikas Singh Mian, as such a case in Cr.No.84l:l 115 U/s 384,506 IPCwas registered against him at Begurr 3azar Ps"

2. The charged officer has submitted 22.06.2016 to the Article of Charge f s, explanation on

3. The Addl. Inspector of Police, Narayana<; da P.S Hyderabad, was appointed as the Inquiring Authority, 'r ho conducted the disciplinary inquiry and held the charge as 'Fr rved' and submitted hls minutes. / 9 5N,l wP No.24316 2022

4. Duly following the procedure prescribed in the TSCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991. the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City awarded the penalty of Postponement of Increment for one year with effect on future increments and pension and the suspension period w.e.f., 02.06.2015 to 02.09.2016 was treated as "Not on duty" vide D.O.No.7717 (No. L&O/86/1730/2Ot5-L9, dated: 05- 09-2019.

5. Aggrieved by the above orders, now he has preferred an appeal petition to the appellate authority i.e. DGP, TS, for consideration.

6. I have gone through the appeal petition of the appellant and the connected PR records carefully and minutely. The main witnesses in the OF deposed against the appellant clearly. It does appear that he did indulge in misconduct.

7. There are no valid grounds to interfere with the penalty imposed or to set it aside. Hence, the appeal petition against the penalty of PPi for one year with effect on future increments and pension" is considered and rejected. (c) The order imnuo d dated 07. L.2O2r, vide Memo No.9187/Ser.lll AL l2O2O of the 1"t resDondent o reiecti no the revision oreferred bv the oetit oner herein, is extracted hereunder : Sub: Police - Revision petition of Sri K.Sudhakar, PC 5L77 of Kulsumpura P.S., (f) Begum Bazar PS, Hyderabad against the punishment of "PPI for one year with effect on future increments and pension" - Examined - Rejected. Ref: From the Director General of Police, Telangana, Hyderabad Lr. Rc. No.440lT212020, dated 06.11.2020. &&& Tha -itairfi^6 D rG r af Daliaa Tel a noan Hvde ra bad- s invited to the referenc cited. He rmed th t the revis o n Det tton of Sri K.Sudhakar. PC ls ln 5177 of Kulsumoura PS (f) Bequm Bazar PS, Hvderabad aqainst the punashment of "ppl for one year with effect on 10 n n r sN 'l V/P No-24316 2022 rnd the sa me f m

2. The Director General of Police, Telangana' llyderabad' is -r"qr"tiuJ the same to the indivil ral under due -inti.ut" acknowledgment. 3. The original records, received through the, eference cited' lie retutnea hierewith and the same be acknowle'j RAVI GUt' A PRINCIPAL SECRETARY T' GOVERNMENT,, ')ed' (D) The r le nt rtio of he t vo rof e t o1 t: tt obtained in 1 nc. C.No. 835 of 15 on he file of M qistrate, NamDallv, DArticu lar, oara N os. 2,L c XVII Additaona MetroDo litan l t vderabad, in riminat Cou rts 4, 1I and 19 are extra hereu nder: "2. The contents of the case are thar , on 19 05'2015 at 17:35 hours a complaint is received from corr )rainant: Mandeep ;i;;h Mr"" wherein he stated that one Police I rnstable of Begum a;)';r. pi bv name Sudhakar is regularly com r g to his office and threatening him to pay amount Jtherwise h: will book criminal .u."l1gui',ltt him and in that regard he a ready met Senior him but rripiiti"gfv on 19.05.2015 at 3'15 PM the sa < Sudhakar came to "?n.".t nir in"p'i"o threatened his brother Vikas I laan for money of Rs.10OO/- and when he expressed inability tc )ay' he warned and took away Rs.1000/- from his brother' '""0 submitted a complaint not '.( -ha,rass n l4 On perusal of statement of I! V.4 it is seen that ! n the contents of h al ir.r tne 161 Cr.P.C 161 Cr.P.C statement. statement the PW.4 did not speak anYth rn( about the accused threatening the PW2 or collecting any morrr 1, from him and he only stated that the Constable from Begum E azar came to Baba's tent house and met Vickey and went awaY n It is seen th

18. It is seen that even specific abJ iive words alleged to uito specif ( rlly mentioned in the have uttered by the accused "t." 11 SN,J WP No.24316 2022 f^ ]rt< li h faitad ec It rrn complaint. alleoed offence by adducing appropriate evidence and the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the charoed offenceq hv xa mtnlno aDDronriate witnesses and the fnvest oatino Officer has also failed to answer all the contradictions committed bv PWs.1 to 4, as such in these carcumstances it cannot be held that the oualt of the accus is established bv the oros cution for the offence U/sec.384,5O6 IPC. as such the accused is entitled for acouittal U I sec.248 ( 1 ) Cr.P.C. The ooint is held is accordi nolv. e

19. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences U/sec.384, 506 IPC and he is accordingly acquitted U/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. (E) The relevant oorti of the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the resDondents, is extracted hereunder: " In this connection, it is to submit that the criminal case in Cr.No.84/2015 U/sec 384, 506, 149 IPC of Begumbazar PS was acquitted in CC No.835/2015 dt:01.03.2018 at the court of XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally Criminal Courts, Hyderabad. The contention of the petitioner that though the criminal case was ended in acquittal the respondents had imposed the punishment is incorrect. Though, the petitioner was acquitted in a criminal case, disciplinary action can be taken against the petitioner, as is well settled, for that departmental proceedinos do not stand on the same footino as a Criminal prosecution in which the degree of proof reouired is of a verv hioh ord er Str ct rul es of Evidence Act and standard of Droof envisaqed therein do not aDDlv to deoartmental Droceedinos. The material must be genuine and relevant to the facts in issue. The standard of proof, in departmental enquiries, is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but the preponderance of probabilities tending to draw an inference that the fact must be more probable. The probative value of the evidence can be gauged from the facts and circumstances in a given case. The preponderance of probability in the departmental enquiry has been amply proved. .1 ,i \ L2. \ \ -i SN,] ' F No.24316 2022 It is to submit that the allegations made by he petitioner are false and far from the truth. The Oral Enquiry v/ rs conducted, as per rules giving reasonable opportunity to th€ letitioner, to defend himself during the Oral Enquiry. There is not ung illegal on the part of the respondents in issuing impug|, rl orders as disciplinary action was taken strictly in accordance ,1 th Telangana Civil Services ( Classification. Control & Appeal) Rul€;, 1991. In a criminal case it is Dunishment for crime, wher as in deoartmental proceedinos it is a penaltL fog misconduct and about he suitabilitv of the e Dlovee to w( rk. He nce, it is clearlv stablished in the o.E. that the l:titioner did induloe an misconduct. The oreoonderance g f orobabilitv exists. He ce, the Writ Petition is not mair l:ainable and liable to be dismissed." (F) The Arti le of Charoe fra ed in the Disciplinarv Proceedin qs rs extracted hereunder. "ARTICLE OF CHARGE AND SUBSTANCE OF I\ PUTATION OF NEGLIGENCE OF DUTY, IRRESPONSIBLE BEI-AVIOUR AND REPREHENSIBLE CONDUCT: - "Sri K,Sudhakar, PC 5L77 ol Kulsrr npura police Station formerly of Begumbazar, Hyderabad r rhile working at Begumbazar Police Station has involverl himself in a criminal case by extorting an amount of R s.IOOO/- and threatened Sri Vikas Singh Maan, as sucl. a case was registered against him at Begumbazar Policr: ;tation. Thus, he exhibited gross misconduct, negligenc: of duty and irresponsible attitude, which is unbecoman!, of a member of disciplined force and thereby Sri K.Sudha < r, PC 5177 ot Begumbazar Police Station have willfully cor travened Rule 3(1), (2) & 3 of APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. '

5. Learned counsel aoDearino on behalf of i he Detitioner ma inlv Duts forth the ollowino subm rssrons: (i) The order impugned dated 05.09.201,) passed by the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City - l''d Respondent 13 sN') WP No.24315_2022 herein, is illegal, arbitrary dnd passed without application of mind in a routine casual manner. (ii) The order impugned dated 05.09.2019 is not supported by any reasons and there is no justification in arriving at the conclusion for imposing the punishment of postponement of Increment for one year with effect on future increments and pension with a clear stipulation that the period of suspension from 02.06.2015 to 02.09.2016 shall be treated as "Not on duty". (iii) The proceedings of the Director General of police, Telangana, Hyderabad vide Rc.No.601/7212019 dated 10.06.2020 in the Appeat petition dated 27 .Og.2OLg preferred by the petitioner against the orders impugned dated 05.09.2019 issued by the 3'd respondent herein is an order passed without independent application of mind rejecting the Appeal Petition preferred by the petitioner without assigning any single reason except stating that there are no valid grounds to interfere with the penalty imposed against the petitioner. (iv) The order impugned dated 07.Ol.2O2t oF the Revisional Authority i.e., 1't respondent herein vide Memo /- w- SN,] v/P No.24316 20 22 74 No.9187/Ser.IUAll202O rejecting the revir ion petition preferred by the petitioner against the punish r rent imposed \ vide impugned orders dated 05.09.2019 of the 3'd respondent herein is arbitrary and unsustain I tle, since the same is also bereft of reasons. (v) The impugned order had been p:;sed without assigning any reasons without applicar i )n of mind independently except stating that the re:,ision petition preferred by the petitioner had been exar ined and the same is rejected as per rules. (vi) The 3'd respondent herein had failec to take into consideration the clear judgment, on m€ I ts, passed in favour of the petitioner in C.C.No.B35 c f 2015 dated 01.03.2018 on the file of the XVII r\ lditional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally Cr i ninal Courts, Hydera bad. (vii) The 3'd respondent herein had fail,:d to take into considerataon the fact that the witner;;es who were examined in the criminal case are the !v tnesses in the departmental enquiry as well. 15 SN, ] WP No.24316-ZOZZ (viii) The order impugned' passed by the 3'd respondent ignored the clear finding of the competent criminal Court holding that the charge is not proved against the petitioner. The speciFic finding recorded in Para 19 of the said ludgment in favour of the petitioner to the efFect that the guilt of the petitioner could not be established by the prosecution had been totally ignored by the 3'd respondent. (ix) The 3'd respondent failed to give credence to the fact that the competent criminal Court gave a verdict in favour of the petitioner acquitting the petitioner and hence the charge in the departmental enquiry cannot be sustained as the very basis of charge is the alleged involvement of the petitioner in a criminal case and that criminal case is registered ag a inst the petitioner. (x) The departmental enquiry conducted against the petitioner was in clear violation of principles of natural justice without adhering to the procedure contemplated under the rules for conduct of enquiry. (xi) The order impugned passed by the 3'd respondent is based solely on the report of the disciplinary authority without considering the pleas put forth by the petitioner in i{j l?E Y= \ I -to SN,] wP 1ro.24316 2022 the elaborate and detailed representation strl,mitted by the petitioner in pursuance to the order.of the acc uittal obtained in favour of the petitioner which ha< even been acknowledged by the oFfice of the 3.d res))ndent herein, dated 14.09.2018,. s a Ba tno on the rssrons; the lea rned cou nsel ao ea rino on beh alf of the Detitioner :onten ds that the wrttDe ition hastobe allowedasb raved f rr. sa id s

6. Lea rned Soeci al Government Plead ero tct nqre lia n ce I on the av rments made in the counte r afl be alf of the r sDond ents ainlv DUtS lavit filed l the followinq t submi sions: (i) Though the criminal case ended in ar:, uittal in favour of the petitioner, the respondents had imp,t;ed punishment by taking into consideration the disciplinar. action against the petitioner herein since the department;rl proceedings do not stand on same footing as a Criminrr prosecution in which the degree of proof required is of a v,: y high order. (ii) The disciplinary action initiated again;t. the petitioner was in strict compliance with the Telanga r a Civil Services h w r' I7 sN,l WP No 24316_2022 (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991 and therefore the plea of the petitioner that the procedure contemplated under the said rules was not followed is incorrect. (iii) In a criminal case it is punishment for crime, whereas in departmental proceedings it is a penalty for misconduct and about the suitability of the said employee to work. Therefore there is no illegality in the order passed by the 3'd respondent herein and the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for by the petitioner in the present writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

7. A bare perusal of the record indicates that the Article of Charge framed against the petitioner in the disclplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner is that while the petitioner was working at Begumbazar Police Station, the petitioner involved himself in a criminal case by extorting an amount of Rs.1000/- and threatened one Sri Vikas Singh Maan, as such the case was registered against the petitioner at Begumbazar Police Station and thus the petitioner exhibited gross misconduct, negligence of duty and irresponsible attitude, which is unbecoming of a member of disciplined force and thereby the r 18 SN,] /P No.24316 20 22 i+: i petitioner had willfully contravened Rule 3(1), (2) & 3 of TSCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

8. A bare perusal of the judgment obtained in :ilvour of the petitioner dated 01.03.2018 in C.C.No.835 of 201j on the file of XVII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Namt ally Criminal Courts, Hyderabad clearly indicates that vide de: riled speaking orders, the petitioner had been acquitted on r terits for the offences under Sections 384, and 506 IPC on the l -ound that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the i ccused for the offences alleged against the petitioner. This Court rpines that the order impugned passed by the 3'd respondent drl:d 05.09.2019 cannot be sustained as the very basis of charge ir ,he disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner i ; the alleged involvement of the petitioner in a criminal cir;e and that a criminal case is registered against the petitioner. 'he said charge framed in the disciplinary proceedings initial( d against the petitioner is extracted he reu nd e r: "Charge under Rule-20 of TSCS (CC&A) lr rLes, 1991 for the following delinqucncy: *Exhibited gross misconduct negliget ce of dutg and irresponsible dttitude, involved hlm-se$ in c'. criminal case bg ertorting an dmount oJ Rs.TOOO/- and thr,t iened Sri Vikas Singh Maan, cs such a case in Cr.No.a4/2O15 U/s 3a4, 506 IPC t td.s registered against him at Begum Ba.zar I 5". 19 SN,] WP No.24316 2022

9. The observations of the ADex Court in fewiudqments and a iudoment of Division Bench of this Court considering the sr rqtainat! it ifv of nr tn chmp nt imnnccd alrr an Ffitnla.tvFe concerned in case of Departmental proceedinos and criminal proceedinqs beinq based on same set of facts are extracted hereunder:- A'l The Apex Court, in the judoment of "G,M. Tank vs. State of Guiarat & Ors.," reDorted in {2OO6) 5 SCC 446, dated h r in the disci nrorecd lndqa re id ntical to th se rlt ha erirnin t :l a:ca :nzl emDlovee has been honourablv acouitted in the criminal case, f h n ntinu in twt ht ha dicain nr.araar{inac rtrt fha e. m charqes would not be iustifi and the relevant DaraoraDh 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 distinguishable on facts and on law. In this case, the deoartmental oroceedangs h riminal case are e c nAI h tnstf h similar set of facts and the charoe in a departmental r't6 hafri?6 ilr6 It is true that the rrirninal anrrrf era nna and thr €arrrp nature of charge in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal case is grave. The nature of the case launched against the appellant on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during enquiry and investigation and as reflected in the charge-sheet, factors mentioned are one and the same. In other words, charges, evidence, witnesses and clrcumstances are one and the same. In the present case, criminal and departmental proceedings have already noticed or granted on the same set of facts, namely, raid conducted ( 20 WP No.24316 2022 sN'l =i---- l-r \ '\ - \ at the appellant's residence, recovery of articles t rerefrom. The Investigating Officer Mr V.B. Raval I rd other departmental witnesses were the only witnesses e:< mined by the enquiry officer who by relying upon their stater ent came to the conclusion that the charges were establisir, cl against the appellant. The same witnesses were exantir _.d in the criminal case and the criminal court on the examir i tion came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not f llved the guilt alleged against the appellant beyond any easonable doubt and acquitted the appellant by i- ;udicial pronouncement with the finding that the charge h I ; not been roved. It is also to be noti p th1 iudicial Dro ounce ent w s mad after a reoul rtl I rl nd on _ ^rould _ rllow the i :dinos to unt ust and unfair and ra find inqs recorde d in the deoart ental stand. ther oo Dressive to st. t

31. In our opinion, such facts and evid: tce in the departmental as well as criminal proceedings we -r ffrs 56mg without there being any iota of difference, tl- ( appellant should succeed. The distinction which is usuz ly proved between the departmental and criminal proceeci rqs on the basis of the approach and burden of proof w,r rld not be applicable in the instant case. Though the finding ecorded in the domestic enquiry was found to be valid b), the courts below, when there was an honourable acqu l.al of the employee during the pendency of the lroceedings challenging the dismissal, the same requires to b: taken note An 1 9e9) 3 Scc w therefo IE, lfiled bv the aDoella nt(! :serves to 1 hold that theaD be allow ed." 81 9 h L B) The Apex Court. nthei dome td. r ed 30.03.1999 reoorted in (19991 3 scc 679 in M.paul Anthonv_ /s. Bharat Gold .;t { 27 SN,J wP No.24316_2022 Mines Ltd. and another in oarticular. at Da rao raDh No.34 observed as under: w

34. There is yet another reason for discarding the whole of the case of the respondents. As oointed out earlier, the cri minal identical set of , namely, '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 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 criminal case but the court, on a consideration of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that no search was conducted nor was any recovery made from the residence of the appellant. The whole ca eof h acquitted. in this situation, therefore, where the appellant is acquitted by a judicial pronouncement with the finding that the "raid and recovery" at the residence of the appellant were not proved, it would be unjust, unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded at the ex- parte departmental proceedings, to stand. w e s c) The Dex Court in the iudoment ated 04.1 .2023 1n 4 1S 5in lal V a d r .2A 2 as under:

28. Exore ssions li ourablv acouitte k "hon to be unde d as mao !c tnca b sedin iud om nts a enefit ofd ou t" and e ntatlons. Aco rt of ,,, w 5N,l wP l.lo.24 315 2022 law will nof be carried awav bv the mere use of such terminoloqv. In the present case, thc Appellate Judge has recorded that Ext. P-3, the original r ark sheet carries the date of birth as 2l-4-t972 and thr: same has also been proved by the witnesses examined c I behalf of the prosecution. The conclusion that the a,; ruitta I in inal oroceed ino was after full con s ideration the cri of the Drosecutio n evidence and I hat the ! e charoe can onlv be arrived at after a readil r of the ! iudqment in its entiretv. T e Court il udicial review is obliqed to examine the substa r ce of the y the form of ,: <pression iudoment and not used. cution mi n

29. We are satisfied that the findings of th r Appellate Judge in the criminal case clearly indicate tha: tne charge against the appellant was not just. "not prove( " - in fact the charge even stood "disproved" by the very prosecution evidence. As held by this Court, ;r fact is said to be "disproved" when, after considering t re matters before it, the court either believes that it dc( s not exist or considers its non-existence so Drob:r lle that a orudent man ouoht. under the ci rcumstar ces of the Da rtic lar case, to ct uDon the uDDosi onthat it does not exist. A fact is said to be "not pro :d" when it is neither "proved" nor "disproved" ;ee Vijayee Singh v. State of IJ.P. lVijayee Singh v. St, e of U.P., ) (1990) 3 SCC 190 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 37Bl ). _t ( D) The Division Bench iudom ent of this c ourt in \.P.S.R. T.C. Vs. T.ven taDati Dorted in 1999(1) .P.L.J. 1a9t C), in W.A.No.124 of 1999. dated 04.O2.1999 is extrac rd here u nder: - t

1. The writ petitioner was prosecuted for ;r eged oFfence of murder of his wife. The death of the wife of p€ t tioner took place on 25th of February, 1996. The petitioner was vorking as Depot Controller at Srikalahasti Depot of the Andlr a pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short the ,R.T. .,). A prosecution was initiated against the petitioner after regist r ttion of crime. In -\,----* h; *.:'- * --. -<-.-"-- ,- Lii,&.- .' " *rrffi8:$*!ffiF**=- E 23 SN,J WP No.24316_2022 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 criminal case against you as Crime No. 30 of 1996 under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C) by Muthyalareddypalli police station which amounts misconduct under Sec. 29 (xxxi) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees Conduct Regulations, 1963. "

2. The criminal prosecution initiated against the petitioner ultimately ended in acquittal in S.C.No. I of 7997 before the learned IV Additional Sessions ludge, Tirupathi by iudgment dated 8-8-1997. The said acquittal has become final. However, the disciplinary authorlty in the departme nta l-enquiry, upon completion of the enquiry passed orders on 28-11-1996 removing the petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred appeal against the said order. The same was dismissed. The review petition was also dismissed by the Regional Manager of the R.T.C. As a result, the petitioner filed the writ petition to challenge the order of his removal.

3. The learned Single Judge held that 1 the disciplinary authority was in error in holding the petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him in disciplinary proceedings in view of the judgment of the Court. The petitioner- delinq uent was entitled to be cleared of the charge in disciplinary enqurry and accordingly allowed the writ petition.

4. Challenging the ordeF of the learned slngle Judge, the R.T.C. has filed this Writ Appeal. We find no merit in the appeal inspite of the persuasion of the learned counsel for the appellant-R.T.C. We have already pointed out as to what charge was framed in the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner. It has to be noted that the charge was not for the substantive act of having caused ' ';' ; t\ 24 sN.j \.'1 \ wP 0.24316 2022 I v n iminal death of the wife. Th charr e was onlv that etitioner tn llvementh d e r ulted tn frami nqofa case for rffence u der Section 3O2 of the I.p.C. The argument of the earned cou nsel for the appellant is that in course of the enqui- the petitioner had himself stated that death of his wife rv: ; resu lt of h is delinquency. It is argued that in view of this tr rn ission of the petitioner the disciplinary authority was justified I accepting the same and Court cannot reappreciate the evidrt r:e. We fail to understand as to how the statement of petitione - r/as relevant in the instant case. The charqe was onlv for in y rlvement in a criminal case resultino in institutino of a _ criminal case 1al case itself -,n-e-Jcry- !as!s ar( 1 :_ should have I ase ended in acouittal. Involvement in a criminal case l rhich was not tenable in Court of taw can hardtv a ! rount to any delinouencv. It cannot be disputed that he disciplinary authority is entitled to hold O disciplinary enqui v on the same charge as is before a Criminal Court beca u.; the scope of disciplinary enquiry and a criminal trial is differe I . But where the charge in the disciplinary enquiry is necessarily lependent 5 on the result of the criminal case if the criminal c I e itself ends in favour of the delinquent, the charge in the di:,r plinary enquiry will become unsustainable one. In the facts and rcumstances of the case having regard to the charge frarr :C against the petitioner and having regard to the result of t. l crimina I case, we have no manner of doubt that the learneci s ngle Judge was right in allowing the petitioner,s claim E. Th lVt n d I ed 02.09.2025 w.A.No.611 oJ2O25 andin artic la r rt ara Nos 16 n c

16. A perusal of the findings recorded by the rr minat Court and the order passed by the respondent departme^ , in the light of the decisions rendered by the Hon,ble Supreme ( ourt cited above command that punishment inflicted on the appe lant pursuant to the departmental proceedings cannot be sust.iil :,J in the light of '" * i.*&.r ..:--:. - :I $r' ' 25 sN,l \NP No-24316 2022 the findings of the criminal Court rendered on identical set of facts and circumstance.

17. In the above situation, when the charges in the departmental enquiry and the charges framed against a ppella nt/petitione r in the criminal trial are similar, this Court is of the considered opinion that the imposition of penalty of R.T.S. P for two stages for a period of two years with effect on future increment and pension, dated 23.08.2016 (final order) as confirmed in the appellate order dated 25.05.2018 was totally uncalled For, particularly in view of the fact that the criminal trial has negated the charges levelled against the a ppella nt/petitio ner.

18. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Single Judge fell in error in upholding the departmental proceedings overlooking and ignoring the findings of the criminal Court on the self-same allegations and the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in similar situation.

19. For all the aforesaid reasons, the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained.

20. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed setting aside the order dated 13.03.2025 in W.P.No.17170 of 2OL9. The respondents are directed to grant all the consequential benefits including the monetary benefits of the appellant. There shall be no order as to costs.

10. A bare perusal of the record indicates that the witnesses in -the criminal case in C.C.No.B35 of 2015 on the file of the XVII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally Criminal Courts, Hyderabad, are same as the witnesses in the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner. 26 s N,l wP No.24l16 2022 'i

11. The order impugned passed by the 3'd resporl lent does not give any reasons with regard to the findings of th,: Investigating Authority who had held the charge as proved exc€ | t stating that the minutes of the O.E., of the Charged Officer i.e., the petitioner herein had been examined carefully and minute y. This Court opines that the order impugned passed by the 3'r respondent is bereft of reasons and there is no justiflcation in rrriving at the said conclusion. In view oF the fact as borne on r:cord that the judgment dated 01.03.2018 passed in C.C.No.I l5 of 2015 on the file oF the XVII Additional Metropolitan Magist.,ate, Nampally Criminal Courts, Hyderabad having become final lnd the same having attained its finality and it clearly indicat:s that it is a judgment passed on merits, therefore once th( acquittal is on merits, the necessary consequences would be tt'; t the petitioner is entitled for all the consequential benefits incl rrling monetary benefits and service benefits as per petitioner's lrgal entitlement as if there is no blemish or blot on petitioner's ;ervice a nd the need for the departmental enquiry is obviated. L2. It is settled law that when an acquittal s on technical grounds, the authorities are entitled to condr-:t departmental enquiry on the same allegations and take apprct rlate disciplinary action. But here in the present case as st rted earlier the ;*{ ffimffiF 27 SN,] WP No.24316 2022 petitioner's acquittal is on merits, the material witnesses in the criminal case and the disciplinary proceedings are the same. The charge framed in the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner is in fact on the very ground that a criminal case had been registered against the petitloner and that the petitioner had exhibited gross misconduct, negligence of duty and irresponsible attitude, involving himself in a criminal case by extorting an amount of Rs.1000/- and further the petitioner had threatened Sri Vikas Singh Maan, as such a case in Cr.No.B4l2O15 U/s 384,506 IPC was registered against the petitioner at Begum Bazar PS.

13. This Court opines that in view of the fact that the very criminal case registered against the petitioner, which had been the basis for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, ended in petitioner's acquittal on merits, the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed For in the present writ petition, since as soon as the criminal case itself was found to untenable in court of law, the very basis of the charge framed against the petitioner had been knocked out. The observations in the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court and the observations of the Division Bench judgments of other High Courts as applied to the facts of the present case clearly indicate that the orders r sN, ) VvP No-243 16 2022 \i" \, \ 'F'.}'' *-'} j impugned in the present writ petition warrant inte- erence by this Co u rt. -I L4. A bare perusal of the impugned order daterl l_0.06.2020 of the 2nd respondent herein in the appeal petition d; r:d 27.09.2019 preferred by the petitioner against the order ir pugned dated 05.09.2019 of the 3'd respondent herein clearly in: cates that it is an order passed without assigning any re rsons without application of mind independenHy in a routine r,lsuar manner stating that there are no valid grounds to int( rfere with the penalty imposed against the petitioner.

15. A bare perusat of the order impugned dzl=d 07.0t.202t passed by the Revisionar Authority i.e., the 1't re: rondent herein in the Revision petition preferred by the p€.I tioner against punishment imposed against the petitioner v cle the order impugned dated 05.09.2019 of the 3.d responder: herein, which had been confirmed by the Appellate Authorit, i.e., the 2nd respondent herein, vide its order dated 10.( 6.2020 clearly indicates that the 1't respondent did not I tply his mind independently and simply rejected the revision f,( tition preferred by the petitioner stating that the revision p€ t tion had been examined and the same had been rejected. I A h Pr 29 n n sN,J wP No.24316-2022 c o Khan&Others at o ara 47 bserve as un er: Para 47 : Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds: (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 judiciat and quasi_judiciat or eve n ad m i n istrative powe r, (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extra neous consideratio n s. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judiciat, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judiciat revtew by superior courts, (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtualty the lifebtood of (f 30 t SN,] U/P No.243 !6 2022 judicial decision-making justifying the principle .t at reason is the soul of justice. \ (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opin,ons these days can be as different as the judges and a rthorities who deliver them. All these decisions servt. one common purpose which is to demonstrate by re ason that the relevant factors have been objectivety con;idered. This is important for sustaining the litigants, fai;tt t in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requicment for both j ud icia I accou nta bi I ity a nd tra nsparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judiciat autho ity is not candid enough about his/her decision-making pr,>:ess then it is impossible to know whether the person decidirt,. is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of increme ttalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions nust be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons a. ,,rubber-stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a valic, lecision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparc,,cy is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judiciat powers Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges er d decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them : ubject to broader scrutiny. (n) Since the requirement to record reas )ns emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-mak r g, (o) In all common law jurisdictions jud, rnents play a vitat role in setting up precedents for the futL.e. Therefore, for |*EWw:!.- ,:, 'r .,/ ,7 r' 31 SN,J WP No.24316 2022 development of law, requirement of giving reasons, for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "due process". In view of the fact that the impuqned order, dated O5.O9.2019 vide D.O.No.77 L7 No.L&O/85l LLSO I 2OL5-L9 Dassed hvD rsct rl !ina r Au horitv- antl v t lm nl td RC No.6O1/TZl2Ol 9 d ated 10.06.2020 oassed bv the aDDellate Authoritv and order impuqned, dated 07.O1.2O21 vide Memo No.9187./Ser.ll/ A1/2()20 oassed bv the Revisiona! Authoritv are admattedlv as borne on record beinq bereft of reasons. The said three impuqned orders are oatently illeqa! and hence, liable to be set-aside.

16. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION: A) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, B) The submassions made by the learned counse! appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearang on behalf of the responde nts, C) The Order impugned dated O5.O9.2O19 passed respondent vide D'O.No.7717 the 3'd f 5L SN,] WP No.24316 2022 No.L&O/86/113O/201S-19 (referred to ar rd extracted above), D) The order impugned dated lo.Crr ;.2O2O in RC No.6OL/T2/ 2019 passed by the 2nd resporrrient rejecting the appeal petition dated 27.O9.2019 pret erred by the petitioner against the order impugned date d O5.O9.2O19 passed by the 3'd respondent (referred to rnd extracted above), E) The order impugned dated O7.O1.2 )21 passed by the Revisional Authority in the Revision pet tion preferred by the petitioner against the order inr lugned dated O5.O9.2O19 passed by the 3.d respondent an( upheld by the appellate authority i.e., the 2nd respondent rlerein vide its order dated 10.06.2O2O (referred to and extt acted above), F) The verdict obtained in favour c,t the petitioner dated O1.O3.2019 in C.C.No.835 of 2O15 or the file of the XVII Additional Metropotitan Magistrate, N:t npally Criminal Courts. Hyderabad (referred to and extract(: I above), G) The averments made in the c( unter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents (re ferred to and extracted above), 33 SN,J wP No.24lr6_2022 H) The Articte of Charge framed against the petitioner in the disciptinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner (referred to and extracted above), I) The Enquiry Report in the disciplinary proceedings which in fact reflected findings in favour of the petitioner herein, J) The observations of the Apex Court in the Judgments (referred to and extracted above), K) The observations of the various Courts judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again entisted below:- i) (2006) s scc 446 i.) (2024) 1 SCC 17s iii) (19s9) 3 SCC 67e iv) 1999(1) A.p.L.J.189(HC) v)(2O1O) e scc 496 L) The observations of the Division Bench judgment, dated O2.O9.2O2S in W.A.No.611 of 2O25 of this Court rendered in identical circumstances that when the charges in the departmental enquiry and the charges framed ( 34 SN,J WP No.24316 2022 against the petitioner in the trial Court are sir re then the imposition of penalty as confirmed by tt e appellate Authority, is wholly uncalled for in view of the fact that the trial Court had negated the charges levelerl against the petitioner thereunder, M) In the light of the discussion and < onclusion as arrived at Para No.s to Para 15 of the presenl: lrder, The Writ Petation is allowed as oraved 'or. The order impqqned dated 05.09 .2019 passed bv the ; ll-respsnCcd as confirmed vide imDuqned Droceedinqs dat :d 1O.O6.2O2O of the 2"d respondent and further confirmed ''ide impuqned roceedin s dated 07.OL.z 21 of the 1"t res I )ndent are set aside and the respondents are directecl to qrant all conseouential service and monetarv br: refits to the Detitioner as per petitioner's leqal entitlemer t as if there is no blot on petationer's service, within a Der od of six (O6) weeks from the date of receiDt of cop\/ of the order. However, there is no order as to costs. 35 SN,] wP No.24316_2022 Miscellaneous petitions, it anv, pending shall stand \ closed. To, Sd/-P,PONNA KRISHN ASSISTANT REGI R //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, One fair copy to the HON'BLE MRS JUSTI REPALLI NANDA (For Her Ladyship's Kind Peru 1 11 L.R. Copies. 2. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

3. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad

4. The Principal Secretary Home (Services - ll) Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad-

5. The Director-General of Police, Telangana State at Hyderabad. 6. The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, at Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad. 7. One CC to SRl. CH RAVINDER, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to SPECIAL GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

9. Two CD Copies DAN/PMK ,9 t*-. HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED: 0G11112025 ORDER WP.No.24316 ot 2022 l\. t ,1 c o I o O 1 flD A 1 l] fi? >a (t' * i ) l ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS UON} l,t pl\\* w l I I I I