S.Surya Prakash v. 1. S.Su

Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the lnterim Orders passed, daled 31.07.2023, in l.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P. No. 20268 of 2023. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.R.TAGORE Counsel for the Respondents: SRI M.V. RAMA RAO, SPL GOVT PLEADER FOR GP FOR SERVICES C.C.NO: 1066 OF 202r' Between: S. Surya Prakash, S/o Late Chandra Shekar chary, aged 58 yeary, Occ ASI lT and'C 870, south Zone, Hyderabad City, Near City Civil Court, Hyderabad. AND ...PETITIONER

1. Sri V V Srinivasa Rao, lPS, The Addl. Director General of Police, Technical Service, Telangana State, O/o Director General of Police, Lakidikapool, Hyderabad. (R1 is deleted as per court vide separate order dt: 2610712024 in CC.No.1066i2024)

2. Sri J Srinivasa Rao, The Dy. lnspector General of police, police IT & uommuntcatton Oroanisafion, Telangana State, O/o. Director General of Police, Lakidikapool Hyderabad. S! j9 ilnpfealed as per Court order dt:26t07/2024 in tA.No.1i2024 in CC. No.1 066/2024) ..,CONTEMNORS contempt case under sections 10 ro 12 of co_ntempt of courts Act 1971 to punish the respondents herein for willfully violating the Hon'ble court order in dated 31-07-2023 passed in tA.No..l of 2024 in Wp.No.2026 Bt2O23. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.R.TAGORE Counsel for the Respondents: ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER 7,/ ]]HII HONOLTRABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI \A RI T PETITION NO.20268 OF 2023 AND C()N EMPT CASE NO.1066 0F 2024 COMMON ORDER W.P.No.2026tl of 2023 In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the acti,:n of the respondents in issuing the impugned Charge Memo Vide C.I.lo.l203lA4l2023-iAIo.031PW20Z3 dt.07 -07.2023 as illegat, arbitrary. unwarranted and contrary to the interim directions of this Court in W.P.No.15259 of 2023 dt.26.06.2023 and consequently to set aside the same and to declare that the petitioner is entitled for promotion as Sub-lnspector (IT&C) as per his seniority and to pass such other order or orders.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are that the petitioner \vas initialty appointed as a Police Constable (Communicatiorr) on 21.03J991 and was subsequently promoted as Head Constable (Communication) in the year 2010 and further promoted as ASI (lT&C) on 10.01.2017. It is submitted that on W.P.No.20268 of 2023 & C.C.No.l066 o12024 \ 2

10.05.2023, he was issued a charge memo alleging that he was involved in a criminal case in Crime No.299 of 2022 of Women police Station, Warangal under Sections 4984, 420,506,509 of IpC and Secrion 3-of Dowry Prohibition Act. Questioning the charge memo, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.15259 of 2023 and rhis Court has suspended the charge memo vide orders dt.26.06.2023. Subsequent thereto, the respondents have withdrawn the charge memo dt.10.05.2023 and issued the impugned charge memo dt.07.07.2023 with the very same allegations that the petitioner is involved in Crime No.299 of

2022. lt is stated that the 4th respondent has prepared provisional integrated seniority list of ASIs (IT&C) and the petitioner,s name was placed at Serial No.l therein. However, on the ground that the charge memo was pending against the petitioner, his case has not been considered for promotion. Therefore, challenging the charge memo dt.07.07.2023 and also seeking a direction to consider his case for promotion, this Writ Petition has been filed.

3. Initially, this Court had allowed I.A.No.1 of 2023 suspending the impugned charge memo and directing the respondents to consider his case for promotion as ASI (IT&C). Alleging that the respondents did not 7/ W.P.No.20268 of 2023 & C.C.No.l066 of 2024 3 comply with the interim directions of this Court, the petitioner has hled Contempt Case in Cl.C.No.1066 of 2024 and the 3'd respondent has filed a stay vacate petilion in I.A.No. 1 of 2024 in W.P.No.2026B of 2023. ln view thereof, bottr the petitions were heard and are being disposed ofby this common and consolidated order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the criminal case was filed against the petitioner by his daughter-in-lalv with false allegations and on tl.re ground that the said criminal case is pending against the petitioner, the respondents have issued the charge memo. It is submitted that in W.P.No.15259 of 2023, this Court had suspended the earlier chargc memo dt.10.05.2023 and directed the respondents therein to consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, if he is otherwise eligible, as and when promotions are taken up for the said post. The leamed counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the proceedings dt.26.06.2023, b1,' virtue of which the earlier charge memo was withdrawn for administrative reasons. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the impugned charge memo dt.07.07.2023 containing the very same charges as contained in the earlier charge memo and it is sated that \ Fri\1 'rl W.P.No.20268 of 2023 & C.C.No.l066 of 2024 4 no detailed reasons are given for withdrawal of the earlier charge memo and issuance of the fresh charge memo. He fuither submitted that subsequent to the same, the petitioner has been acquitted from the criminal case and therefore, the disciplinary proceedings on the very same ground cannot be entertained/continued. 5 The 4th respondent has fited a counter affidavit stating that the daughter-in-law of the petitioner has filed a criminal case against the petitioner and therefore, it goes to prove that the petitioner has exhibited gross reprehensible misconduct and criminal behaviour. It is submitted that the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case is not a clear acquittal on merits and therefore, the petitioner cannot seek discharge from the disciplinary proceedings on the said ground. It is submitted that the criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings are independent of each other and therefore, the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated on the basis of the enquiry report of the SP (IT&C) and further that in view of the pendency of the grave criminal charges against the petitioner, he was not entitled for promotion ln the light of G.O.Ms.No.104, General Administration (Ser.C) Departmcnt, 7/ W.P.No.20268 of 2O23 & C.C.No.l066 of 2024 5 dt.16.12.1990 and the Circular Memo No.15813/Ser.Cl2007 dt. I I .09.2007. [t is therefore prayed for vacation of the interirn orders.

6. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit reiterating the submissions made in the writ affidavit and also that the 3'd respondent, in violation of the directions of this Court to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion, has given promotions to the juniors of the petitioner vide proceedings dt.09.09.2024 and promoted 22 candidates who are all juniors to the petitioner in the feeder cadre of ASI (IT&C). It is further submitt,:d that the respondents have filed a Writ Appeal in W.A.No.1l28 of 2023 before a Division Bench of this Court, wherein the decision of this Court was modified by directing the appellants to consider the case of the writ petitioner for promotion to the post of Inspector strictly in terrns of G.O.Ms.No.257 dt.10.06.i999.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prithawi Nath Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand and othersr in support of his contention that the respondents have to comply with the directions of this Court * '4ln zoo+ sc +2ii : (2ot)4\ 7 scc 261 r \ W.P.No.20268 of 2023 & C.C.No. 1066 of2024 6 even if ultimately the interim order is vacated or relief in the main proceeding is not granted.

8. Learned Govemment Pleader for Services reiterated the submissions made in the counter affidavit and the additional counter affrdavit.

9. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the ground for issuance of the charge memp to the petitioner is that there is a criminal case filed against the petitioner by his daughter-in-law. The criminal case has subsequently ended in acquittal of the petitioner. The respondents have not issued the charge memo to the petitioner with regard to the incident on the basis of which the criminal case was filed, but the charge memo issued to the petitioner was that the criminal case was filed against him. It is the competent crirninal court which has to consider and examine the allegations against the petitioner and the concerned trial court has subsequently acquitted the petitioner from all the charges. The authorities have not initiated any disciplinary action for the criminal acts alleged in the criminal case. Therefore, the respondents cannot now tum around and 7', W.P.No.20268 of 2023 & C.C.No.l066 of2024 7 hold that the petitioner is responsible for the criminal case Iiled against him. l0; In view thereof, the respondents ought not to have issued the second charge memo and ought to have dropped all further proceedings against the petitioner after acquittal from the criminal case. Therefore, the impugned charge memo dt.07.07.2023 is set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector (IT&C) on the basis of his I seniority and merit. ll. W.P.No.20268 of 2023 is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. C.C.No.l066 of 2024

12. This Conternpt Case IS for non-compliance with the interim directions of this Couft. However, this Court finds that in the Writ Appeal, the Division Bench has modified the interim order olthis Court and therefore, this court is satisfied that there is no wilful disobedience ofthe directions ofthis Court by the respondents.

13. C.C.No. 1066 of 2024 is accordingly closed. W.P.No.20268 of 2023 & C.C.No.l066 of2024 r 8 14, Pending misceilaneous petitions, if any, in these matters including I.A.No.l of 2024 in W.p.No.202 68 of 2023 shall srand closed. ITRUE COPYII SD/- K.SHYLESHI JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 2 J

1. The P rincipal Secretary, Home Dept. Secretaria t, Hyderabad, State of Director General Of police Telangana State , Hyderabad. Telangana. The The Addl. Director General of Police, Technical Service, Telangana State, O/o DGP, Hyderabad The De uty lnspector General of police Police lT and C, TS, O/o. DGp, p Lakdika pool, Hyderabad One CC to S RI M.R.TAGORE ,Advocate I One CC to S RI M.V.RAIVIA RAO SPL GO Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICE S, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. Two CCs to THE ADDL. ADVOCATE GENE RAL High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CD Co pres OPUC VTPL EADER IOPUC l To \ \

5. o. 7. B. I PSK. PSK /1b HIGH GOURT DATED:0910412025 COMMON ORDER WP.No.20268 of 2023 AND GC.No.1066 of 2024 I 1;rTHE s )4 o O ,6 TPn 2W c ( !' t I ?r'c" ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION AND CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE WITHOUT COSTS 1Ad'