P Anjilaiah v. The State of Telangana

Order

Seeking to declare the action of respondent No.5 in issuing the notice dated 19.05.2025 vide C.No.238/Hgs/WNP/2025, under the instructions of respondent No.2 calling upon the petitioner to undergo fresh physical fitness tests for reinstatement, as arbitrary, unreasonable and unjust and consequently to set aside the same, the present Writ Petition is hled.

2) Heard Sri S.Krishna Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services (Home) for the respondents. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initially the petitioner was appointed as Home Guard in Home Guards Orgalization in Mahabubnagar District having duly undergone and qualified in all the physical and medical htness tests prescribed for appointment vide order dated 17.O2.2OO2 bearing D.O. No.54/2003. While the petitioner was working in Mahabubnagar District, he was removed lrom the services of the Home Guard Organization by the then Superintendent of Police, Mahabubnagar, PK, J s'p 18557 2025 ...'l vide D.No.S1 /2011, dated 17.01.20 I 1 on the grcr nd that he was involved in a criminal case and subsequently he was reinstated into service as Home Guard vide D.No.570/20 12 de ted 02.O4.2012. It is further submitted that during District bifurcz tion in the year 2016, he was allotted to Wanaparthy District on Order to Serve' basis and attached to Khilla Ghanpur Police St e [ion for further duties. While he \\ras \{,orking as such, agaLr he u,as falsely implicated in crime No.2B /2O2O for the allegec offences under Sections 3O7 , 324, 323 read with 34 of Indian ]\ nal Code of PS Kulkacherla and after filing of the charge shcc t the same was numbered as S.C. No.24 of 2022 on the file of A,; ristalt Sessions Judge at Vikarabad. In connection with the same. espondent No.5 has rssued order dated 24.O4.2O2O by placing the >etitioner under suspension and the sarne was challenged br' .l e petitioner in W.P.No.22177 of 2022 r,r,herein vide order dated \6.06.2022 this Court has issued interim direction to respondent No.4 herein to consider the representation of the petitioner da ,ed O5.O1.2022 seeking reinstatement into service. Despite the sz id direction, no action was taken by respondent No.S to revoke lr : suspension of the petitioner. Instead, respondent No.5 has J z ssed the order 3 PK, J wp_18557 2025 dated 1I.O7.2O22 removing the petitioner from the rolls of Home Guard organ izatioo, wanaparthy District, with immediate effect. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has fired w.p.No. 19222 of 2024 and the same was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 06.1I.2024 directing respondent No.2 to consider the representations dated 18.06.2024 and 25.02.2024 and pass appropriate orders duly taking into consideration the judgment dated 03.04.2024 passed in S.C. No.24 of 2022 by the Assistant Sessions Judge at Vikarabad. Hou,ever, respondent No.2 has passed the rejection order vide Memorandum dated 03. r2.2o24 which was challenged in W.p.No.5462 of 2O2S wherein vide order dated 03.03.2025 this court has set aside the removar order dated 1r.o7.2022 and directed the respondent authorities to reconsider the case of the petitioner, if he is otheru,ise eligible. pursuant to the said order dated 03 .O3 .2025, the petitioner has submitted a representation dated r1-04.2o2s to respondent No.2 requesting for reinstatement. In pursuance thereof, respondent No.5 has issued the present impugned notice, dated lg.OS.2O2S, under the directions of respondent No.2, requiring the petitioner to undergo 4 PK, J wp 18557 2025 physical fltness test for his reinstatement into s:rvice as Home Guard. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court

3.1) Learned counsel for the petitioner has corr ended that the impugned notice dated 19.05.2025 is passed contr rry to the order dated 03.03.2025 passed by this Honble Court ir 2025. It is further contended that the petitic W.P.No.5462 of ner cannot be subjected to physical fitness test again inasmuch a I he has already cleared all the requisite tests at the time of his init and the requirement of undergoing physical al appointment itness test is applicable only to the fresh recruits. Hence, the 1r, titioner cannot now be subjected to undergo physical fitness test f<r: reinstatement. Thus, the requirement of unclt,t htness test is wholly r_rnwarranted in the pres: acquittal of the petitioner from the criminal ca s the purpose of going physical rt case. The : removes the embargo placed on him and entitles the petitioner t r be taken into service automatically without imposing any rl Therefore, issuance of impugned show cause.

19.O5.2025 amounts to non-compliance circumvention of the directions issued by this !v conditions. notice dated indirect lourt in W.P. No.5462 of 2025 vide order dated 03.03.2025. Hen re, the learned --4 -J =--d l PK, J wp 18557 2025 counsel seeks indulgence of this Court and set aside the impugned show cause notice 4) Per contra, the learned Government Pleader has submitted that during the District bifurcation in the year 20 16, the petitioner was allotted to Wanaparthy District on 'Order to Serve' basis and was attached to Khilla Ghanpur Police Station for further duties. Further, in view of registration of criminal case against the petitioner vide FIR No.28/2O2O, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 24.04.2020, which is the subject matter of W.P.No.22177 of 2022. However, vide order dated 11.O7.2022 in C.No.234lRI-Hgs/WNPY/2022, DO No.32612022, the petitioner was. removed from the rolls of the Home Guards Organization. Aggrieved by the said removal order dated ll.O7 .2022, the petitioner frled W.P.No. 19722 of 2024, wLrich was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 06.11.2024. Pursuant to the same, respondent No.2 has issued Memorandum dated 03.12.2024, which was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.5462 ot 2025 wherein this Court has passed orders dated 03.03.2025. In pursuant to the same, the representation of the petitioner dated

11.04.20 15 was considered by respondent No.S and the impugned ,:,:!i&!t.,._ _ _ .: .- \1 6 notice dated 19.OS.2O2S has been issued under respondent No.2, intimating the petitioner that : undergo physical fitness test, which is required t Force. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner ti subjected to undergo physical test cannot be sr r doors are always open to the petitioner to prove _t further contended that the petitioner was removed for his alleged involvement in criminal case. Lear: has specifica-lly denied the contention of the peti acquittal from cnminal case removes the embarg: petitioner and entitles him to be taken into serz person is removed from service, re_appointment ints re-appointment and it is a new process. However . intentionaily wants to waive the rules of appointme_: contended that as per the order of the Division Ben,: in W.P.No.35460 of 2013 dated 08.06.2O1g, reinsrz Home Guard be subject to the physical frtness tes 1 order r.r,as also confirmed by the Hon,ble Supremc Dairy. No.14I62/2019, dated 26.0T.2OIg. Thr contended that the respondents are justified in issr- PK, J wp-18557 2O2S he directions of : is required to r be part of the at he cannot be tained ald the s fitness. It is rom the service :d Government ioner that the placed on the ce. Once the service means the petitioner -. It is further r of this Court tement of the and the said Court in SLp refore, it is ing the shorv h__ -.- _ -:--:- -==--_ I '7 PK, J wp 18557 2025 cause notice dated 19.05.2025 asking the petitioner to undergo physical fitness test. Hence, there are no merits in the writ petition ald the same is liable to be dismissed. 5) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective counsel and perused the record. 6) A perusal of the material on record discloses that admittediy the petitioner was removed from service on the ground that he was involved in criminal case uide crime No.28/2020 registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 307, 324, 323 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code of PS Kulkacherla, which was numbered as S.C. No.24 of 2022 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge at Vikarabad. However, the petitioner was acquitted in the said case vide judgment dated O3.O4.2O24. Considering the said acquittal, this Court has allowed W. P. No. 5462 of 2025 vide order dated

03.03.2025 directing reinstatement of the petitioner, if he is otherwise eligible and the said order has become hnal. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner made a representation dated \1.O4.2025 to respondent No.2 seeking reinstatement. But, placing reliance on the words 'if he is otherwise eligible' appearing 8 PK,.J wp 18s57 2025 I in the order dated 03.03.2025, respondent No.5 ras issued the present impugned show cause notice requiring t t 3 petitioner to undergo physical htness test. The words 'if he is o Lcrwise eligible' by no stretch of imagination indicate the requirer : :nt of physicai fitness test afresh. As the earlier removal orders d a r:d 03.12.2024 and ll.O7.2O2) tt,ere passed only on the ground r { involvement of the petitioner ir-r criminal case, the respondents ougllt to have reinstated the petitioner into service in view of acqrr ttal of his from the criminal cases. With the acquittal of the peti ioner, the very basis lor his removal, stands wiped out. The I c bre, inevitable consequence flou,ing out of acquittal of the petitio)'r l ' is nothing but his reinstatement. In this context, it is apt to refer to the 1t dgment of the 7l Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramlal u. State tf Raiasthanl wherein it has been held as under: " 12. However, if the charges in the departmental ( criminal court are identical or similar, and if the evidetr,:t circumstances are one and the same, then the m r different dimension. If the court in judicial review cor acquittal in the criminal proceeding was after fuil cors prosecution cvidencc ard that the prosecution miseral l rqurry and the , witncsses and ter acquires a ;lude s that the der:rtion of the failed to prove I 2024 SCC Onl,rnc SC 2594 9 PK, J wp_ I4557_2025 the charge, the Court in judicial revlew can grant redress rn certa_tn circumstances. The court will be entitled to exercise its discrction and grant relief, if it concludes that allowing the findings in the disciplinary proceedings to sta-nd will be unjust, unfair and oppressive. Each case will turn on its own facts.

23. It is very clear that relevant a;rd material evidence being, the deposiLion of PW-S/Raj Singh; the marksheet o[ 8'h class of the appellant [enclosed to the chargesheet] and the original marksheet independently marked as Ex. D3 by the defence have been completely lelt out in the discussion and consideration. Inference has been drawn about the proof ol the charges by ignoring crucia.l, relevant and material evidencc rvhrch had come on record. The evidence of PW-S Raj Singh and the marksheet and the original marksheet marked as Ex.D-3, rvcre materials having a direct bearing on the charge. The Disciplinary Authority has merelv reiterated the reasoning in the enquiry report. Equally so Erre the hndings of the appellate authority. [t is well settled that il the findings ol the disciplinary authorities are arived at a-fter ignoring the relevant material the court in judicial review calr interfere. It is only to satisfy ourselves to this extent, that we have scrutinized the material to see as to what was reflected in the record. We are satisfied that the disciplinary proceedings are vitiated alrd deserve to be quashed-

24. In this scenario, we are inclined to accept the explanation grven by the appellant that overwriting in the application form was only due to correction of an inadvertent error. As long as the origlnal 8 , standard ma-rksheet reflected his date of birth as 21.04.1972 arrd there is no correction or manipulation in that document, the appellant cannot bc penalized. I IO \*1 .l PK, J rvp 18557_2025 - Effect of Acquittal in the Crimiual Proceedinc - Ouestion Io.2

25. With this above background, if we exiunir proceedings the lollowing factual position emerges. witnesses, rvho wcrc examined in the departmcr-r : examined in the criminal trial. .Jagdish Chandra, Shravan La1, Raj Singh arrd Ka_ran Sharma were exa:rirr PW6, PW9 and PW 13 respectively at the criminal trial r eight other witnesse s were also exarnined. The g.avzu.r in the criminal case was that the appe[ant had subm:t r for recruitment along with his marksheet and he, by r in his date ol birth to reflect the same as 24.04 ' 21.O4.1974 zrnd obtaincd recruitment to the post of Cr r the Trial Court conr.rcted the appellant under Sectior Appellate Court rccordcd thc tollowing crucial findine: the appellant: c the criminal 'l'he very same I enquiry were 3hawani Singh, cl as PW2, PW3, part from them, :n of the charge i arl application aking alteration 72 in place of stable. Though 12O of IPC, the .r'hile acquitting ". Mainlv thc present case \yas based on the (l( ( elfcct whether the date of birth of accused is 2l.O4.lg7 ). Exh. P-3 Js original Markssheet, in rvhich, the date of b has been shou'n ;rs 21 04.1972 and same has also ltr_,r r witnesses examined on behalt of the prosecution. documents have l)een produced before the Court regiul birth of 2 L04. 197 4 arc either the letters of principd or a .r or Marksheets. Nerthcr thc prosecution hag produced ar documents in the SLlbordinate Court to this effect r admission form of accused was filleri. what date of birtl Iry the accused in iL. \\,hat lvas the datc of birth in Roll ll, t \vhat date of birth lvas mentioned by accused in the Exirr l Secondary. and nor after brining thc origrnal records frorr witnesses, salre rvere got proved in the evidence. In thesil this fact bccomcs doubtful that date of birth of accuscd r and accused is entitled to receive it's benefrt. [n the cons c this Court, the cor)viction made by thc Ld. Subordinate l l ments to this cr 21.O4.197 4 rth of accused proved by the Whatever the ng the date of I)uplicate T C. ' su<:h origitral rat when thc vas mentioned ster of School, ratiorl Form o[ the concernccl 'ircu mstances, s 21 .04.197 4 , :red opinion of )urt mcrely on |f,21-7'. ,l ,/, PK, J wp 18557 2025 thc basis of oral evidences and letters or duplicate documerrts, is not just and proper. It is justiflable to acquit the accused. Resultantly, on the basis of aforesaid consideration, the present appeal filed by the Appellant/Accused is liable to be allowed."

26. What is important to notice is that the Appellate Judge has clearly recorded that in the document Exh.P-3 original marksheet o[ the 8rh standard, the date of birth was clearly shown as 21.04.1972 and the other documents produced by the prosecution were either letters or a duplicate marksheet. No doubt, the Appellate Judge says that it becomes doubtful whether the date oI birth was 21.04.1974 and that the accused was entttled to receive tts benefit. Ho$ever, $.hat we are supposed to see is the substance o[ the judgment. A reading of the entire judgment clearly indicates that the appellant was acquitted after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and after noticing that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge.

27. Expressions like "benefrt of doubt" and "honorabty acquitted", used in judgments are not to be understood as magic incantations. A court of law rrill not be carried away by the mere use of such terminolos/. In the present case, the Appellate Judge has recorded that Exh. P-3, the original marksheeL carries the date of birth as 21.04.1972 and the same has also been proved by the witnesses examincd on behalf of the prosecution. The conclusion that the acquittal in the criminal proceeding was after fult consideration of the prosecution evidence and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge can only be arrived at after a reading of the judgment in its entirety. The court in Judicial review is obtiged to examine the substance of the judgment and not go by the form of expression used.

28. We are satisfied that the findings of the appellate judge in the criminal case clearly indicate that the charge against the appellalt was not just, "not proved" - in fact the charge even stood "disproved" by the very prosecution evidence. As held by this Court, a fact is said to be .disproved, whe;r, after considering the matters before it, the court either betieves that it docs not exist or considers its non existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the t) t. l I I I I I J \t PK, J wp 18557_2025 supposition that it does not exist. A fact is said to be "no1 ,roved. when it is neither "proved" nor "disproved".

29. We are additronally satisfied that in the teeth ol he finding of the appeliate Judge, the disciplinan proceedings and the ordr:r ; passed thereon cannot be allotved to stand. The charges were notjust simrliu but identical and the evidence, u,'itnesses and circumstances were all the satn :. ,lhls is a case rvhere in exer.cise of our discretron, we quash the orders c the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority as allowing them to str rd will be unjust, unfair and oppressive. This case is very similar to the situl ion that arose in G.M. Tank (arpra). B) Further, the Division Bench of the erstwhilr High Court of Judicature of Andhra pradesh at Hyderabad n ApSR?C u. T.Venkatapathg2, has held as under: "1. Challenging the order of the learned single Judge, I this writ appeal. We fincl no merit in the appeal inspite of thr learned Counsel for the appellant-RTC. We have already poirt charge was framed rn the disciplinary enquiry against the p€t be noted that the charge u,as not for the substantive act of hav of the wife. The charge ,,vas only that petitioner was involved I and the said involvement had resulted rn framing of a crimina under Section 302 of the IpC. The argument of the learnel appellant is that in course of the enquiry the petitioner had I i death of his wife rvas result of his delinquency. [t is argued t_r admission of the pctitioner the discrplinary authority was jus:r the same and Court cannot reappreciate the evidence. We 1a as to how the statement of petitioner was relevant in the irr cl-rarge was only for involvement in a criminal case resulting r crirninal case against the petitroncr. As soon as the crimint found to be untenable in Court of la\e,, the very basis of the ch.r out. The chargc should have becn quashed as and when t re RTC has filed ,ersuasion of the d out as to what ioner. It has to ng caused death a criminal case case for offence Counsel for the 1self stated that rt in view of this ied in accepting I to understand tant case. The jnstituting of a case itself was ge was knocked : criminal case 2 t999 (4) ALD 39 (DBl PK, J wp_ 18557_2025 ended in acquittal. lnvolvement in a criminal case which was not tenable in Court of law can hardly amount to arly delinquency. [t cannot be disputed that the disciptinary authority is entitled to hold disciplinary enquiry on the same charge as is bcfore a Criminal Court because the scope of disciplinary enquiry and criminal trial is different- But, where the charge in the disciplinary enquiry is necessarily dependeut on the result of the criminal case if the crirBillal case itself ends iE favour of the delinquelt, the charge iu t-he discipliuary euquiry will become unsustalnable one, In the facts and circumstances of the case having regard to the charge framed against the petitioner and having regard to the result of the criminal case, we have no manner of doubt that the learned single Judge was right in allowing the petitioner's claim." (emphasis added) ( I 9) In view of the above settled proposition of 1aw, the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement in view of his acquittal in the criminal case. Further, vide order dated 03.03.2025 in W.P.No.5462 of 2025, this Court has not ordered for fresh reinstatement of the petitioner, in which event only the petitioner can be subjected to physical fitness test. But, such is not the case herein. In the absence of any such specific direction, the respondents are not justilred in issuing the impugned notice dated 19.O5.2025 requiring the petitioner to undergo physical fitness test for the purpose of reinstatement. Therefore, the impugned notice dated

19.O5.2025 is not sustainabie and liable to be set aside. I I l4 PK, J wp 18557 2025 10) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, the mpugned notice dated 19.05.2025 ts set aside and the respondent; are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, sL r ll stard closed. No costs. SD/- AS sil ; l NA KRISHNA REGISTRAR lEcrloN oFFlcER //TRUE coPY// To, I ThcPrincioalsecretary,HomeDepartment'secretariat3uilding'TheStateof r"6ngind, HYderabad-5oo 022 The Director General of Police' Telangana State' Hyde'r bad Police, (Home Guar s),Telangana State'

3. The lnsPector General of Hyderabad.

4. The Commandant, O/o The HYderabad.

5. The Superintendent of Police' Commandant Home Guards' Telangana' O/o SuPerintendent l Police, WanaParthY, WanaParthY District' One CC to SRI S KRISHNA SHARMA' Advocate [OP - ]l Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State r f Telangana [OUT] 7 8. Two CD CoPies tu, PVL LS HIGH COURT DATED:21 11112025 :.. | 1-'\ "c \\\ ' 'i: \' '> tl ORDER WP.No.18557 of 2025 ii, -: \i:,. t: !:1, \: r,.t: l.! -' ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS T q \t) 0