Bheemappa v. State of Telangana

3. Learned Counsel aPPearing for the petitioner submits that his report stating that the though the Enquiry Ofhcer submitte petitioner has misappropriated an arno nt of Rs.33,043/ onlf instead w\&::" \r \ - 6 of Rs.5,17 ,576 / as alleged and though the petitioner is acquitted of the criminal r:ase vicle judgment daled 22.O2.2OO2 in C.C,No.5i88 of 201B. the 3,,i respondent erroneously imposed the major punishment of removal from service. Agpgievecl thereby, althor-rgh the petitioner preferrccl an zrppeal stating that he lrras acquitted of the criminal case on merit, thc appellate authority erroneously rejected the appeal u,ithout considerrng the contentions raised by the petitioner.

4. Lean..ed counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that a careful reacling ol the contents of thr: jr-rdgment dated 22O2.2O2?- ir-r C.C No.5188 of 2019 would make it clear that the competent cr-inrrnal Court has recorded a categorical finding at Paragraph Nc.5(xi1 and S(xiv) that the amounts u,ere deposited. There is rro cogent evidence to prove that the petitioner had collccted the ztlit ou llts

5. l,eanrecl r:oLtn:;cl appearing for the petitioner further submits th:rt thou.eh thr: allegation in the criminai case is that the petitioner has misappropriated amounts by falsifying accounts and thereby committed crirninai breach of trust and cheating, the sum and substance of the disciplinarl, proceedings is that rhe petitioner has misappropriared amounts by lalsifying the records as per the findings of the Inqurring Authority. The material placed before the competent Court and the Inquiring Authority is the same. The 2"d respondent - t: I. i i i l I It t ! I I I I l i { I 7 had rejected the appeal without contentions raised by the petitioner' m criminal case would not enure to standard of Proof required in deP addressing any of the rely holding that acquittal in a e petitioner's benefit, as the cntal proceedings is one of a preponderance of Probabilities' In suPPort of his contentions, le

6. petitioner relied upon the judgments o Appeal No.7935 of 2023, dated O4' placing reliance on the judgment GUJARAT AND OTHERST and otherj ned counsel aPPearing for thc the Hon'ble APex Court in Civil

12.2023, r','hich rvas rendered G.M.TANK Vs. STATE OF dgments

7. Learned counsel aPPearing for that the principle enunciated in the a facts of the present case and, therefor the said judgments to the case on ha the petitioner further submits ove decision is aPPlicabie to the , sought to extend the benefit of d and accordinglY set aside thc impugned orders passed by responde Nos.2 and 3 B. The resPondents filed a cou disciplinary authority, after carefully findings of the inquiring authority' awarded the Punishment of removal the burden of proof is essential' In based on the PrePonderance of ter affidavit statilrg that the eviewing the entire PR file' the d other relevant records, has m service, as in a criminal case ntrast, dePartmental enqutry ts probabilities. The charge of ' zooe (s) scc aao 8 s/ffiB wBd \E:! l \= - misappropriation of arr amor.rnt of Rs. 5,47,6761 , which is to be deposited in thc Government account, has been proved against the petitioner. ancl the petitioner's explanation u,as not convincing. Though the crimin:11 case registered in this regard had ended in acquittal, or-al c;rquirl against the petitioner was very much proved and having ful1v agreeing r,r,ith the findings of the lnquiring authority has au'arded the punishment of "Removal from Se rvice", duly treating his suspension penod from O6.01.20 11 to 15.01.2013 as "Not on Dutr"' . Agericvcrl bv the order of the Disciplin ary Auth ority, the peritione: herei,-r i-iacl preferred an appeal petition before the appellate authoritl , i.e.. t}'re l)rrector General of Police, Telangana, Hyderabad, requesting rein statement into service, which \\,as rejected vide Proceeciings No 34O lT4 / 2023. dated 27.O4.2024.

9. It is furthcr stated that earlier, the petitioner worked on a deputation basis in Vigilance & APTS PS, Ranga Reddy, South Circle, from 1504.20L):l to O3.10.2009 and repatriated to AR Cl,berabad Poiicc on C3.I0.2009. The petitioner was entrusted vvith the duty of coliecting compolrnding amounts and assessment amounts from the accused consuners in Ranga Reddy District. The said amounts ['ere collected from consumers from 15.04.2003 to 03.10.2009, and subsequenrly', tl-re petitioner was repatriated to his parent unit on

03.1U.2UC)9. AIte r his repatriation, in his place. PC 4754 Sri S.Edu[<ondalu and PC 170 1 Sri S.Venkateshwara llao were deputed to W 9 collect the amounts in the same ea. During their visit, the consumers/accused in Cr'Nos'5346 I 20 7 and,2609 12007 stated that they had paid the compounding amount the petitioner in the Year 2007 its and assessment alnounts to 1f, and in support of their contention, they had produced the recei ts issued bY the Petrtloner

10. It is lurther stated that during th investigation, on verificatron of records, it was found that misappropr ation had taken Place. While the petitioner was working at V & APTS P.S. R.R.South Circle, Budha Bhavan, based on the comPlaint, AC registered against the petitioner for t Sections 42O, 4O3, 409 and 477(A) | submitted by the Joint Managing Dire TRANSCO VidY'ut Lr.No.JMD(V&S) / P. o(VIDEI I v C-2 I 822 I petitioner was Placed under susp D.O.No.38/201 1, dt.06.01.2O1 1 under Soudha, 199 1 and the disciplinary proceeding e in Cr.No.3O5 oi 20 10 tvas e offences Punishable iinder C and basing on the rePort tor, Vigilance & SecuritY, AP Hvderabad, OlO-2, clt.O3 01.20l1, the sion vide Proceedings 1n ule 20 of TSCS (CC&A) Rules, u,ere ir-ritiated against thc petitioner. 1 1. It is further stated that the P judgment dated' 22.O2'2O22 in C'C'No AuthoritY has given a categorical substantiating evidence to Prove tltloner was acquitted vide 5188 of 2O18. The Inqutrrng finding that there ls no that the Petitioner has .\ L0 misappropriated an amount of Rs.5,47 ,6761- and also non- availabilitl. of 2O4 receipts proves that the petitioner has misappropriated the Government amount to the extent of Rs.33,043/- b-\' rrot rcmitting it to the Government Account, u,hich is a fraudulent act cionc bv the petitioner. The petitioner has not provided any clarity and has not subrnirted an_r, er.idence of having remitted Rs.S,47 ,6761- to the Government in his defence to disprove the allegations made agai;rst him. While corroborating the charges levelied against the pcli'.ioncr. suflicicnt eviden<:e is available, which shori,s that the petitioner pnrduced fake perrnanent receipt numbers mentioning the Challan numbers ol other crimes and issued them to accused/(pou,er theft) consumers, mentioning different crime numbers. This is a fraudulent- act cornmitted by the petitioner. From the evidence avirrlable on rccord, it is revealed that the petitioner has mi siippropriated an arnount of Rs.33,043/ without remitting it to the Government. Thereiore, the 3.a respondent had rightly imposed the m ir..;or ptrr-ushrnent oi removal lrom service, in addition to treating the periocl of suspension from 06.01.20 I I to 14.O1.2013 as not on duty. Aggrieved by the order of thc 3.a respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2"d respondent, who, in turn vide impugned order dated 27.04.2024, rejected the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the pelitioncr has liled ihe prescnt writ petition. dWr?,8" f .,/ / 11 It is further stated that Rule 21 of t2 that the Proceedings in a criminal proceedings are distinct and different' the petitioner are grave involving financt e CC&A Rules, 199 1, states ase and the dePartmel-rtal e allegations levelled against misaPP roPriatron 1 3. It is further stated that acquitt enure to the benefit of the charged of required in the departmental proceedin probabilities. Is the burden of Proof establish. However, after revrewtng documents, including, challans' F substantial evidence submitted during is evident. Hence, th of probabilitY in criminal case wou.ld not cer as the standard of Proof s is one of PrePonderance of at the Prosecution failed 1 the existing records and opinion/ rePort, and rhe he inquiry, the PrePonderance 2.d respondent has issued rejection order 14 . In support of his contentions' th appearing for the respondents relied Apex Court in UMON OF INDIA Vs' that the Hon'lcle SuPreme Court has that disciplinary proceedings is not standard of Proof required in a preponderance of probability and not p Iearned Government Plcadcr pon a decision of the }ion'ble BAHADuR2 and stated iven clear ruiings to the efl'ect criminal trial and that the is one of sciplinarY' inquirY of beYond reasonable doubt' ' t9z2 sLR sc ass I 12 X?tq.! Yr.Y*I -

15. In State of AP Vs. S. Sreerama Rao3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the inqurry is held correctl],. the departmental authorities are the sole Jttdges of facts. Suppose there is some legal evidence on q,l-ricl.r their finriings can be based. In that case, the adequac\. or rcliabilitv of that evidence is not a matter that can be permrtted lo bc' canr,assed before the High Court rn a proceeding for rvrit under Arti<:ie 226 of the Constitution of India.

1.5. ln Union of India Vs. Harjeet Singh Sandhu+, the Hon'ble Supreme Cor-rrt helci that if tu,o vieu,s are possible. the court shall r-rot ir-rterfei-e br' .'sulrstituting its o'i'n opinion for the satisfaction or opinion of the ar-rthoritr . exercising the po\l,er under judicial revieu,. 17 . It is furth er sl-ated that the power of judicial review is meant to enslre that th. inclividual rc'ceives fair treatment and not to ensure that the concllrsion that the ar-rthority reaches is necessarily correct in the e1'c o1' thc court. The disciplinary authority is the sole Judge of facts. 'i he Cou i"t/l'ribunal, in exercising its power of review, does not act :ts an appellate eruthorit,v to re evaluate the erridence and to arrive at its independcnt lindings based on the said evidence.

18. it is further stated that in the case of Ram Lol V, State of Rajastho,n & Ors(Civil Appeal No.7935 of 2023), the appellant / charged officer therein Post acquittal has filed a writ petition seeking 'atn t9o: sc tz:j "rnnr Itl\t tsr_l W // 13 reinstatement bY quashing the dis issal order of the ApPellate Authority and subsequent refusal review. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, elucidating he differing standards of Proof between the crimina1 case and the dep tmental proceedings. The lvrit appeal filed by the petitioner there n met with a similar [ate, reiterating the limited parameters for a udicial revie'"r, against an order in departmental proceedings. The be h also remarked that it u'as also a'*,are that the mere acquittal by a riminal court would not grant the employee the right to claim any ben fits, including reinstatemetlt 1 9. It is further stated that the m terial was placed before the competent court. The inquiring authori is the same, it is the burden of proof that prosecution has failed to stablish in the criminal case. In contrast, after going through al1 ting records, documents viz. ' chalians, FSL opinion/report and the ubstantial evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced before th inquiring authoritl', it r"'as proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Petitioner had misappropriated an amount of Rs'33,O 3/-, which was collected from the accused of Power theft consume s towards comPounding and assessment amount and had not remit d to the Government account and the petitioner has not produced y evidence in his defence to prove that he has remitted the amou ts of Rs.5,47,6761- into the ted the Governmentamounts ' Govt. account and has not misapprop In the absence of anY evidence ad uced by the Petitioner, the 14 allegation of misapproprial-ion of Government amount stands proved Therefore, the writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

20. While r-eiteraling the counter averments, the learned Government Plearder apltearing for the respondents submits that the respcndents havc rightlv oassed the impugned orders and there are no grounds to interferc u'ith the same

21. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner filed a reply affidavit reiterating the same submissions as stated in the u,rit aflidavit

22. Hear<l tlie learned counsel appearing for the petrtioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. Perused thc record

23. I{arring considcred the r-ival submissions m:rde by the learned counsel lor the respective parties, the points for consideration are : 'l . Whethcr the petrlionerhas misappropriated an amount of Rs.5,17,67 6 I -.

2. The allegation is made against the petitioner after one and half r.ear of his rcpatriation to his parent unit_

3. When the allegatrons in both the Departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings are one and the samc, and once the petitioner was acquitted in the 15 criminal case vide judgment 1n .C.No.5188 of 2O18, dated 22.02.2022, t}:,e dePartmen I proceedings cannot be continued.

24. Learned counsel aPPearing for order of this Court in W.P.No.702O he petitioner relied uPon the of 2023, dated 06.12.2024, wherein this Court allowed the writ peti ion observing as follows :- 12) ln similor circumstonces, the Hon'ble Apex Co SC 2594), hos held os under: rt in Romlal's case (2O24 (SCC Online "12. However, if the chorges in the deportmen identicol or similor, ond if the evidence, witnesse some, then the PK, .) wp-7020-2023 motter ocqui in judiciol review concludes thot the ocquittol in considerotion of the prosecution evidence qnd th prove the chorge, the Court in iudicial review con The court will be entitled to exercise its discretio d ollowinq the Jindings in the disciplinory proce oppressive. Eoch cose will turn on its own focts e lenquiry ond the criminol ccurt ore ond circumstonces are one and the s o different dimension. lf the court e criminol proceeding wos ot'ter fttll t the prosecution miserobly foiled to ront redress in certoin circumstonces ond gront relief, if it concludes thot s to stond will be uniust, unfair ond Further, the Division Bench of the erstwhile High ot Hyderobod in Venkotapothi's cose (1999 (4) AL urt of Judicoture of Andhro Prodesh 39 (DB), hos held as under e, the RTC hos filed this writ oppeol. "4. Chollenging the order of the leorned sinqle ]u osion of the learned Counsel t'or the We find no merit in the oppedl inspite of the pers to whot chorge wos fromed in the oppellont-RTC. We hove olreddy pointed out os be noted thot the chorqe wos not for disciplinory enqury ogoinst the petitioner' lt hos he wife. The chorge wos only thot the substontive oct of hoving coused deoth of e satd involvement hod resulted in petitioner wos involved in o criminol cose ond 302 of the lPC. The drgument of the froming of d criminol cose for offe nce under Sectio e of the enquiry the petitioner hod leorned Counsel for the oppellant is thot in cour his delinquency. lt is otgued thot in himself stoted thot deoth of his wife wos result o ciplinory outhority was justilied in view of this odmrssion of the petitioner the dt the PK, J wp-7020-202j evidence. acceptinq the some ond Court connot reapprecio etitpner wos relevont in the instant We foit to understond os to how the stotement of inol cose resulting in instituting of o case. The chorge wos only for involvement in o cri criminol cose itself wos found to be criminol cose ogoinst the petitioner. As soon as th horge wos knocked out. The chorge untenoble in Court ol low, the very bosis of the criminal cose ended in ocquittol should hove been quoshed os ond when the te in Court of ldw con hotdlY omount lnvolvement in o criminal cose which wos not teno to ony delinquency. lt connot be disputed thot th disciplinory outhority is entitled to 16 Gt#s! ls:r+: \,' - hold disciplinory enquiry on the some chorge os is before a Criminol Court becouse the scope of drscrplinory enquiry ond crimindl triol is different. But, where the chdrge in the disciplinory enquiry is necessorily dependent on the result of the criminol cose if the criminol cose itself ends in fovour of the delinquent, the chorge n the disciplindry enquiry will become unsustoinoble one. ln the focts ond circumstonces of the cose hoving reqard to the chorge fromed ogoinst the petitioner ond hoving regord to the result of the crintinol cose, we hove no monner of doubt thot the leorned single ludge wos right tn ollowtng th? petitioner's cloim." 14) Coming to the cdse an hond, the chorge memo wos issued to thc petitioner on the graund thot he wos invalved in o uiminol cose, which wos odmittedly ond ultimdtely encied in (tcquittol vide judgment doted 21.0j.2O22 possed by the V Additional Sessions ludqe, il-FTC, Worongal ot Janqoon, in Sessions Cose No.24 of 2019. Further, the \litnesses cited tn crrminol cose os well os in deportmentol proceedings vide chorge memo doted 19.07.2018 dre one dnd the some. Therefore, hoving rcqord to the low loid dcwn by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the obove ret'erred judgments, this Court is of the view thot the impuqnec orders ore nat sustoinoble under low oud ore therelore lioble to be slt aside. '25. Lcarned (iovernment Pleader appearing for the respondents relied upon the judgments ol the Apex Court in GOVIND DAS Vs, STA?E OF BIHAR AND OTHERSs ar.rd PRAVIN KUMAR Vs. UMOIVOF INDIA AND O?TTERS6.

26. It is to b<: seen that in the instant case, the allegation against t.he petitioner is that he h:rs misappropriarted an amount of Rs.5,47,6761 , br:t the Department failed to prove in their enquiry. The enquiry report itself stated that there is no evidence to prove that the petitioner has misappropriated an amount of Rs.S,47,6761 , Holever, there is evidence thi,rt the petitioner has misappropriated an amount of Rs.33,O43/ . So, the report itself is not in a position to prove the actual misappropriation of amount bv the petitioner. (1-o97) 1i Supreme Court Cases 361 " I207Ol q Storeme CoLlri Cases 471 i . I ! i i I i I ! I : I 77 Therefore, imposing the ma..;or punts ent of removal from servlce ts untenable 27 . The contention of the petitioner s that after one and half year from the date of relieving lrom the pl ce u'here he was deputed, the allegations were made against the p titioner. If the petitioner has really misappropriated the amount as eged by the respondents, theY ought to have Proved the same t, in the instant case, the respondents failed to prove that the pe tioner has misapproPriated an amount of Rs.5,47,676/-. Therefore, t e allegations made against the petitioner after one and half year c not be proved in toto. E"'en during that one and half year period, ome other employees lvere also entrusted with the same duty that the etitioner had rendered.

28. Learned counsel aPPearing for he petitioner relied uPon the decisions of this Court in L's ccrse (supra) and VENKATAPATHI's case (SuPra), whe ein it was observed that the q,itnesses cited in the criminal Pr ceedings as well as in the disciplinary proceedings are one and present case, a Perusal of the c the same However, in the minal proceedings and the departmental proceedings goes to sho that the issue is one and the same, except one or two witnesses are different. Therefore, the said cases do not apply to the case on hand' 18 \FFtt?;"* I \::,_J - 29 . In support of his contentions, the learned Government Pleader relied upon the -judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Govind's case {supra}, r.r,herein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follou,s

2. 1'he only qrc:ttnd tuhrch has been urged bg the leanted coLLnsel for the appellant irr s,tltItorl r:l this appeal is lhot since the appellcrftt has been ocqutited irr iitt: oint).ttal case. the order for terminutiort rf his seruices sltould ltau,: bccrz sel aside. Tlrc Learned counsel has plcLced beJore us ct tcttrty oJ' th-e jutlqrnent of the crirninal court uherebq th.e appellanl was ttccluitted. We houe qone through the said judgmerLL Wr: find tLrut the t,crluitlal oJ tltt: uppellari is bused. on the uieu.) that the charges are not pttued bet1,tn i re-ctsonnble doubt. Since the standard ctf ltroof required to t;r,.ne a charcle ,:I miscortduct in depaftmental proceeclincts is tlot the same rts Ll'tat re,qttir,-,ci to prot)c. a cr[minal charge, the acquittctl oJ tlt<: appetltnt ln thc crirnirml case, in lhese citurnstances, coulcl not, in our optnton, be tn ade tlte basts Jbr setling aside the order for termination ol'tlrc seruices of the uppellctnt passed in the disciplinary proceedirtg:; ort the basis of euidence atlditc<td in the deparlmental inquiry conductecl it th<: charges ieue,l.led ctgai. st. the appell.ant. We, therefore, futd no rrt:it ttr this appeal arici the sarnc i.s accordinglg dismissed. "

30. ln the abolc case, the Hon'ble Apex Court held t]-rat sincethe standard of prooF rcquired to prove a charge of misconduct in deparli-ncntal pi oceediltgs is not the sarne as that needed to confirm a criminal chargc. the acquittal of the appellant in the criminal case could not be mzrde the basis for setting aside the order of termination of the serr,ices ol the appeliant passed in the departmental proceedings based on evidence adduced in the departmenta-l inquiry conducted in t he charges levelled against the appellalt. In the present cas;e. ciu-ring the departmgntal enquiry, thc respondents failed L9 to prove that the Petitioner had Rs.S,47,6761-. However, there is misappropriated alr arnount of Rs.33, isappropriated an amount of vidence that the Petitioner 43 I . Therefore, the aforesaid case is not fully applicable to the case n hand.

31. Learned Government Pleader app aring for the resPondents also relied upon the judgment of the H ntrle Apex Court in PRAVIN KTIMAR's case (supra) and stated tha the power of judicial review is distinct from appellate power exercl d by departmental aPPellate authority. In the said judgment, rvith regard to the effect of criminal enquiry on disciplinary proceedings, rt as held as follow's

33. The incident of 28-2-1999 ro.isecl under the Penal Code and the Preuention uiolation of Sentice ReguLations and ad addition to appointment of enquiry officer, ciminal complaint uith the CBI. Afier in Launch ci Jind adequate mateial to appellont but tlvough its self speaking recommended major disciplitary action enous quesLiorts oJ crininalitg of Corntption Act, as uel! as of inist rafiue misconduct. '1hus. in the ctuthoities ctlso registered. a tigcttion, the CBI though did nol inal prosecuLion against the eport dated 7 3'2OOO, the CBI inst the oppeliont ancl a fetu others.

34. It is begond debote that ciminal p proceedings. It is both possible and co establish charges against a delinquen probabititie s and conseEtentlg terminote euidence maA not be sufficient to toke ana lau jurisprudence. Such distinction betu ciuil and ciminal litigotion is deliberate, the pouer imbalance betueen the Pa erroneous decision. Thtts, in a disciplino ceeclings are distinct from ciuil on in discipllnary matters to offcial by preponderance of seruices. But the same set of g fus libertg under our ciminal n standards of Proof amongst iuen the differences in stakes, s and the social costs of an enquiry, stict rules of euidence 20 end procedur( of o ciminal ticLl are inapplicoble, like sag, stotenents mode be.fore enqr,Liry officers co-rt be relied upon in certain istonces.

35. 'l'hus, the oppellant's contenLion that he should be txortcrated in the prescnt proce(,(1ing-s as no ciminctl charge sheet uas rtbd bg lhe CBI cLJier en-quiry, is lialtie to be discarded. The emploger alLUaAS rclLtil:; the iqht to cotttluct an i,rde{:<:ndent discis;linary proceed[ng, irrL,spetliue ctf the out<nme oJ e t irninaL proceeditg. Furthermore, the ('Bl t (pot1 dated 7-3 2A00 does rect)tnntend rnctlor disc[plinary action agalnst lle appeLlonL The 5qitl repor1al..io bullra?.s.ses the respondent's case. In thc said jr-rdgment, with regard to punishment and irlc:r of lenic|Lc1 , it rras held as follows :-

36. [rt ,zir tmsiciered opinion, the appellont's colllctlti()n that Lhe putuslutl?rri o/ cli-snis.scrl uLos disproportionate to the ctllegotion of corntptictrt. is rL,ithotLt meit. It is a settled legal proposition that the disciplin.ctry ailthoitA has utide discretion in imposing punishment for a oroued delinclu e nal, subject oJ course to pinciples o.f proportionalittl and .fair plag. Sttch r<:quirements emanate from Arti<'le 14 ttselJ, wh.ich prohibits SiaL. .tuth.oities from treoting uarying degn:es of misdeeds tuith lha sam(, ltroLtt.i stntke. Determination of such proport.ronaltttl Ls a furtction r:i ;tol rirtlq tht cLcticttt or intention of the tlelinquent, bLLt ,nust also factor thte.iirnnciul t ilcct and societai intplicotion of such ntisccntclut:t. But unlike ii tnm,ircii r'.rses, in matters of di.sciplinary procr:ecl.iLcls courts only in:e,r[e,r<, ()ri rJtl)t,it1.l:; r:f ltroportionalitA Luhen theg lind tltot |LLC pu.nishment rit-urircied is itrctrdinote to a hiqh degree, or if the cortsclt'nce of the court It.se[/' i-s -<hor:ked.. Thus, u..'hereas imposition of ma.jor penaltg (like disrri.ssal, rent<tuctl. or reduction in rank) uould b<t discriminatory ancl im-y:nnissiblt' ]br triuictl misdee ds but for graue offences there is a need to senri a ctear nLessage of detenence to the societg. Charges such as corntption, mtsapprcpicttion and gross tndiscipline are pim.e examples of the latter cateqory, and ought to be deolt u.ttth stictlg.

37. Applging llese guidelines to the facts of the case in h.and, it is clear Lh.di the puni-.;itilettt of dismis:;al from seruice is far from dsproporlionaLe ,w,\{ - 27 to the charges of corruptton, fobicatio unanimously been prouen aga inst the ct utould be an onathema to serutce lunsp sAstematic corntption and its blatatt co dismissal from seruice, lhen the Pu penalties, uthich are explrcitlA prouide Constituton, uould be obtiterated- ond lntimidat[on u.'hich haue ellant. Takiq any other uiew dence. If u)e tuere to hokl that er up are inctciequate to uLlrQCt e behind hauing such ma.1or for under Atlicle 31 1 ctf the

38. Stilt further, the appellant s actions huge consequential losses to BPCL and lo amongst members of tLLe Public Giuert appellanl's force, a sense of integit camaradeie is paramount. This expectat of the appellant giuen hotu he u.tas spe corntptiorr and conducting surprise raids. intimidaton, forgery, ond comtption; onlg imposed. uld most probctblY haue causea red the reputatton of the CISF the paramilitary nature of the' commitm.ent, disciPline. ond n is onlg heightened in the co.se IIA te.sked unth t'eedin.g out through clcts of Once shatt€tred the seueresl penaltg oughl io be

32. From the above judgment, it is e dent that the Pon'er of judicial review is distinct from appellate p departmental authorities. It is a sett wer being exerclsed bY the ed legal proPosition that the disciplinary authority has wide discreti n in imposing punishment for a proven delinquency, subject, ol ourse, to the PrinciPies of proportionality and fair play. Such req irements emanate from Article 1 4 itself, which prohibits State aut oritie s from treating varylng degrees of misdeeds with the same oad stroke. Determination of such proportionality is a function of no oniy the action or intention of the delinquent but must also factor t e financial effect and societal implication of such misconduct. Ho ever, in the case on hand, although the allegation against he petitioner is that he ( l i I 22 misapproprlated an amount of Rs.5,47,676 /-, t!l-e same could not be ehcited. anci there is evidence lhat an arnount of Rs.33,043/- only vvas misapproprlated.

33. [n t]it: case of dtscrplinarl, proceedings r.r'ithout conducting a prcper cnquin' itnd u.ithout bringing proper evidence to that effect, authorities caitnot impose major punishment. In ttie present case, thc petitioner v,,'zrs at:quitted in thc criminal case ald ir-r the departmental croceedings. tht. allegarions ntade by the Departrnent could not be proved. it is sta,.ed in the enquirv report that therc is no evidence to prc\re ih:-.t thr petitioner has misappropriated .ln amount of Rs .=,47 ,6t61- irnd rn the said circumstances, imposition of punishment oI removal from service is highly objectionable and disproportionatc to tne alleged misconduct. Moreover, u,hile imposing ihe nta.lor punlshment of removal from ser."ice, treating thc suspension perioll as hoI on cluty'is acceptable because the petitioner has noi rtorked fbr the sa.id periocl and the principle ol'no u,.ork ald no pa),' r'".oulci app1y.

34. lnsotal as the pLrnisl-rment of removal from service is concerned, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the r:ase, this Court is of the considere<l 'ier., ti-rat the punishment of removal from service is disproportion at( to the alleged misconduct. Therefore, this court feels I 7 Z) it just and proper to modify the punish ent of remova-l from service to that of compulsory retrrement

35. Accordingly, the order dated 2 .04.2023 passed by the 3rd respondent, as confirmed by the appel ate authority vide order dated

20.06.2024, 1S hereby set aside. The punishment of removal from servlce imposed on the petitioner ts odified to that of compulsory retirement. Insofar as treating the susp nsion period from 06.01.201 1 to 14.01.2013 as'not on duty'holds goo

36. The r,r.rit petition is accordingly i disposed of. No order as to Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE C PYII SD/- L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ;i1( <rv SECTIOT{,OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice (For His LordshiPs NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO Kind Perusal) To, '1 . The Principal Secretary to Governme Hyderabad. t, Home Department, Secretariat, T.S

2. The Drrector General of Police, Telang 3. The Commissioner of Police, Rachako 4 11 LR Copies 5 The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Affarrs. New Delhi. 6 The Secretary, Telangana Advoca Buildings. Hyderabad. 7 One CC to SRl. V RAVICHANDRAN B Two CCs to GP for SERVICES (Home Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] na State, Saifabad, HYderabad da,TS inistry of Law, Justice and ComPanY s Association, Library, High Court vocate IOPUC] , High Court for the State of Two CD Copies o KKS GJP HIGH COURT DATED:0810712025 Sre r4. ) ) 1 a :inA r.'\at, .J ( a ORDER WP.No.18251 of 2024 DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1s 1 o<- ,t3./9,,,< 5