The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. lelangana-State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC), Rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad-500020.

2. The Executive Director, TSRTC. Hyderabad Zone, Hyderzbad.

5. The Regional Manager, TSRTC, Secunderabad Region, Hyderabad. The Divisional Manager, TSRTC, Kushaiguda Divison, JBS, Secunderabad The Depot Manager, TSRTC, Chengicherla Depot, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.1-the Vice Chairman and Managing Director, TSRTC in issuing the Proceedings No.P1l19(5)12O22- PO(|R), dated 19-10-2022 rejecting the Representation, dated Ogl02l2o22 submitted by the petitioner, as highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, violation of principles of natural justice and also violation of fundamental rights under Art.14, 19, and 21 of Constitution of lndia and consequently. to direct the Respondent no.I-the Vice Chairman and Managing Director, TSRTC to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.1-the Vice Chairman and Managing Director, TSRTC to reinstate the petitioner into service, pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. HIMANGINI SANGHI REp. FOR M/s. SHATK MADAR

counsel for the Respondents: sRl rHooM sRtNtvAS (sc FoR TsRTc) The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION NO.21368 OF 2O23 DATED: 16.12.2025 Between: Sri V.Samasailu And Petitioner Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC) and Others .....ResPondents ORDER: Heard Sri Himangi Sanghi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri N.Srushman Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The oetitioner approached the Court seekino amended praver as under: "...to issue a writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring thg action of the Respondent No.1-the Vice Chairman and Managing Director TSRTC in issuing the Proceedings No. PL/19512022-PO(IR), dated t9,10.2022 rejecting the Representation, dated 09/0212022 submitted by the petitioner as highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, 'principles of natural justice discriminatory, violation of and also violation of fundamental rights under Art. 14, 19 and 2L of Constitution of India and consequently to direct the Respondent No.1, the Vice Chairman and Managing Director, TSRTC to reinstate the petitioner into 2 SN, J service forthwith with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and pass....,, under:- The retitioner was appointed as driver in the year 2006 in 1't r€Spr)n6lsnt corporation and got regularized in 2010. The petitioner was arrested on 16.0g.201g by porice on the allegations of rape committed by the petitioner and committed to judicial custody on 18.09.2018 because of which the petitioner couldn't trc able to intimate the said arrest of the petitioner to the 1st respondent corporation. Later on, the 1rt respondent corporation issued charge sheet to the petitioner on the grounds of unauthorized absence, tarnishing the image of the respondent corporation and for not giving the intimation with regards to Petitioner's arrest to the 1.t respondent corporation. subsequenuy one more charge sheet was issued to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner gave fake pay slip to one K.Sushm.r and the petitioner submitted his exptanation to both the charge sheets on 10. t2.zot} and 08.02.20Lg respectively. 3 SN. J It is further the case of the petitioner that the inquiry officer without considering the plea of the petitioner conducted the inquiry without giving opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the witness and submitted the report dated 20.06.2019 stating that the petitioner proved guilty. The petitioner submitted objections to the said report but without considering the said objections, 5th respondent issued proceedings dated 05.08.2019 removing the petitioner from the service. Later on, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected vide proceedings dated

28.08.2019 by the 4th respondent, subsequently revision petition and mercy petition was rejected by the 3rd respondent and 2nd respondent respectively. Further, the petitioner was acquitted from the said rape case on 16.10.2021, the petitioner following the said acquittal once again made an application to the 1't respondent requesting to reinstate the petitioner into the service but the same was 'rejected by the 1't respondent. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner preferred the present writ petition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD. 4 SN, J A. hereunder:- The Hon'bre court vide its order dated 16.10.2021 in S.c.No.907l20Lg observed that the petitioner is entifled for acquittal on the ground that prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the acquittar of the petitioner is not an honorabre OO€r. rn terms of circurar No.4 glrggs-opD(T), dated 21.07.1995, rf the acquittar is on technicit lrounai like witnesses not forthcoming or turning hosfite or benefit of doubt is given to tle accrr..d-, o, where e_vidence given is contradictory during the course of ther trial etc., no reinstatement shall be considered by the appellate/review authority. - rn the light of above, r do not find any reason to interfere with the orders arready passed in this case by the disciplinary and appellate-authorities. Therefore, the petition preferred by the Petitioner sri v.somasairu, E.2i Lrg4, Ex-Driver of cGcL Depot is hereby REJECTED as devoid of merit. -rhe Petitioner is directed to acknowledge receipt of lthese proceedings. B. The r-ot.o2 Court o 5 SN, J Additional District & Sessions Judqe, Ranqa Reddv District at L.B.Naqar is extracted hereunder:-

14. To establish the said fact, the prosecution examined PW.1/victim who deposed before this court that she has not given any report on 16.09.2018 against the accused and has no knowledge regarding the contents of report dated 16-09-2018 in this case though it contains her signatures. It is further deposed by the PWl/victim that she has no grievance against the accused and expressed ignorance of facts of this case.

15. PW2 who is the father of the PWl/victim had also exoressed the ionorance about the facts of this case and about the identity of the accused. 19. Admittedlv the reoort dated 16.O9.2O18 is not exhibited before this court to orove that anv reoort arrainct the accr ead an t6 nO ,O Q lrrr fha r(: victim/Victim. There is no evidence before this court to prove that the accused on or before 15.O9.2O18 at 2O:3O hours at PVR aoartments, Boduooal had committed raoe uoon PW1/victim and had oromised the victim rPW.1 to orovide iob in Road Transport corLoration and dishonestly induced her to oav rupees 3,OO,OOO to orovide iob in RTC and that the accused had committed anv criminal breach of trust after receiving Rs.3 lakhs for the purpose of orovidinq job PW1/Victim and that the accused had created, foroed and fabricated fake identiW card and oav slios and that when PW.l/victim had questioned about the fabrication of fake identitv card and oav slios, the accused had criminallv intimidated the victim/Pw.1 with dire consequences of killing her son.

20. In view of above discussion and the facts and circumstances, this Court find that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not inspiring the confidence to believe that the accused had sexual intercourse with PW.1 . and had promised the victim /PW.1 to provide job in Road Transport corporation and had dishonestly induced her to 'l ,...:l , :i:il.:i.l*{il 6 SN, J -i.[. pay rupees 3,00,000 and created, forged and fabricated fat:e identity card and pay sti;; i",,i"nJl committed criminat breach of kust ino' tna[ *rie,i pti.].Uri.ti, f,ua questioned about the fabrication of iO".tity card and pay stips, the accused had crimin;ti'r:i,iiiout"a ,n" victim/pw.1 with dire consequences of litting"ner son and thus the prosecution tu, iiir"j- t""'r."r", ine guilt or act:used beyond reasonabte oouoi ano ;;;;, the accused is r:ntitled for acq u ittar. rne poini Ll n-r*Ir"t'u..ordin gry. 21. In the resutt, the.accused is found not guilty for the charses punishabte ,"G;;;;;""lrrotzl -si?iiinaia t,l (n l, 42o, 406, 4 67, aos, qi t-ina n pena t Code against accused ina te--is a-ci,r-:tt ul" zss (1) cr.p.c for the sau crriigel. ir," tii:l=jnds of the accused shau remain in_f5rce i;;;';;"d of six months from the date of this judg..it I""r., sectaon 431-A of the code of. c..;i;;i?;;-;;;8. propefi is avaitable in this i"-ri.i no order """" ::1il:,"n disposat of property E;;ii by this """. DISCUSSION AND CONTCUSION:_ 5 r co n la DDEar! oo n h tf t ton r nerotyt i) The punishment of removal from service imposed against the petitioner needs to be set_aside in view of the fact that the criminal case registered against the petitioner vide FIR No.713 of 2olg for the offences under Sections 316,40,6,42O,467,46g,47t, 506 r/w 1O9 ofIpC , Section 92 of the rights of persons with Disabilities Act, 7 SN, J 2016 on allegations of petitioner having involved in rape, cheating, sedation, forgery etc., which had been the foundation for framing charges in disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner herein had ended- in acquittal in favour of the petitioner. ii) The impugned order passed by the respondent No.l herein, dated 19.10.2022 rejecting the representation of the petitioner, dated O8.O2.2O22' seeking setting-aside the punishment of removal from service imposed by respondent No.5, dated 05.08.2019 is without application of mind, and had been passed mechanically without taking into consideration the verdict, dated 16.10.2021 passed in favbur of the petitioner in SC.No.9O7 of 2O19 on the file of the Court of I Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases Relating to Atrocities Against Women-cum-XVl[ Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District. iia) The order impugned of the 1't respondent is bereft of reasons, since it is observed in the verdict, dated 16.1O.2O21 passed in favour of the petitioner in I 8 SN, J sc.No.9ll7 ol 2019 on the fire of the court of r Special sessions; Judge for Trial of cases Relating to Atrocities Against women-cum-XVrrr Additional District & sessions Judge, R.anga Reddy District that the petitioner is entiHed for the acquittal, on the ground that prosecution failed to prove petitioner guilty of the offences alleged against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt, and the said acquittal of the petitioner is honourable one, and the lst respondent failed to take the verdict obtained in favour of the petitioner, dated 16.10.2021 in s.c.No.g 07 0t 201g in its entirety while passing the impugned order, dated !9.to.2(J22. Based on the cogEgg! aopearinq on behalf of the oetitioner contends s, said su thal!-the oetitioner is entitled for the relief as orayed for bv the oetitioner in the oresent writ oetition.

6. Learned standinq counsel aooearinq on behatf of the resoondents olacino reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the resoondent Nos.1 to 5- in oarticular oara Nos.ll and 12 maintv puts'[qrth the followino submissions:- 9 SN, J i) The punishment of removal from service imposed upon the petitioner by the 5th respondent is adequate and commensurates with the gravity of the offence committed ii) The Appellate and Review authorities had rightly rejected the appeal and review petition filed by the petitioner herein. iii) By the verdict, dated 16.10.2021 in S.C.No.9O7l2OL9, the petitioner had been acquitted on the ground that prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt, and the same is not a honourable acquittal. iv) The action of the respondents in removing the petitioner from service, is in accordance with service regulations. Based on the aforesaid submissions, learned standino counsel aopearino on behalf of the respondents contends that the writ oetition needs to be dismissed.

7. A bare perusal of the verdict, dated 16.10.2021 passed in SC.No.9O7 of 2O19 on the file of the Court of I i I .J r l0 SN, J special sessions Judge for Triar of cases Rerating to Atrocities Against women-cum-Xvrrr Additionar District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, in particular para Nos. L4t Ls.t t,gt zo and 2i (referred to and extracted above) and in particurar at para No.14, it is clearly observed that the prosecution examined Pw1lvirctim who deposed before Court that she has not given any report on 16.09.201g against the petitioner and had no knowredge regarding the contents of report, dated 16'09'2018, though, the said report contains her signatunes and it is further observed at para No.14 of the said vendict that it had been deposed by the pw1/victim that she had no grievance against the petitioner and expressed ignorance of facts of the case.

8. A bare perusar of the concrusion as arrived at para No.2o rof the said judgment crearry indicates a crear finding that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not inspiring the confidence-to berieve that the accused had sexual intercourse with pw1 and had promised the victim/FWl to provide job in Road Transport corporation and hence, the prosecution had faited to prove the guirt of SN, J accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence the accused had been found not guilty for the charges framed against the petitioner and very clearly observing that the accused/petitioner herein is entitled for the acquittal.

9. This Court ooines that the order impugned oassed bv the 1't respondent is an order passed mechanicallv without application of mind, without examininq the verdict. dated 16.1O.2021 passed in SC.No.9O7 of 2019 on the file of the Court of I Soecial Sessions Judoe for Trial of Cases Relatino to Atrocities Aoainst Women-cum-XVIII Additional District & Sessions Judoe, Ranoa Reddy District at L.B.Naoar in its entirety and totalitv and totally ionored the vital fact as borne on record' that the disciplinarv proceedinqs had been initiated aoainst the oetitioner, on the sole orimarv oround that FIR No.713 of 2O18 for the offences under Sections 376. 4O6, 42O, 467, 468, 471, 506 r/w 1O9 of IPC , Section 92 of the riqhts of Persons with Disabitities Act 2O16 had been reoistered aoainst the oetitioner and the same had ended in acquittal in favour of the oetitioner after conductino due trial as oer '. I t2 SN, J procedure and the said verdict had been oassed on merits

10. Learned standing counset placing reriance on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and also ther circular No.4gl9s-opD-T dated zl.o7,19gs, in particular clause (K) contends that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition since in the present case the victim herself had deposed that the victim had no grievance against the accused and therefore as per clause (K) of the circutar dated 2t.o1.1995, the order impugned is justified and warrants no interference by this court, but this court opines that the said plea is untenable and hence, rejected since aclmittedly as borne on record, it is apparent that order impugned dated Lg.to.zozz issued by the vice chairman and Managing Director of Telangana state Road Transport corporation is on the ground that the acquittat of the petitioner is not an honourable one, hence, therefore, the request of the petitioner for setting aside the order of punishment imposed against the petitioner l3 SN, J dated O5.O8.2019 had not been considered, but the said conclusion arrived at by the respondent No.1 is contrary to the findings arrived at in the verdict, dated 16.10.2021 in SC.No .gO7 of 2O19 on the file of the Court of I Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases Relating to Atrocities Against Women-cum-XVIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, which are in fact in favour of the petitioner herein.

11. A bare perusal of the verdict of the trial Court clearly indicates that it is an order passed on merits after conducting due trial with clear findings arrived at in favour of the petitioner herein and therefore this Court l opihes that alt the pleas put forth by the learned standing counsel are untenable and hence reiected, more so in view of the fact that the charges in the criminal case had been the only basis for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner herein. L2. The obgervations of the Apex Court in few iudgments and a judgment of Division Bench of this Court considering the sustainability of punishment imposed on i I *r,r*a,iJ .:"iffi r t4 SN, J an employee concerned in a case where Departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings had, been based on same set of facts in simirar circumstances as in the present case are extracted hereunderi_ A) The Apex Court, in the judgment of ..G.M. Tank vs, State of Gujarat & Ors.,,, reported in (2OO6) S SCC 446, dated 10.05.2006 herd that if the charges in the disciplinary proceedings are identicar to those in the criminal case, and the emproyee has been honourabry acquitted in the criminat case, then continuing with the disciplinary proceedings on the same charges wourd not be justified and the retevant paragraph Nos.3o and 31 of the said order are extracted hereunder: 3o' The judgments reried on by the rearned counser app,3aring for the respondents are distinguishable on factrs and on taw. In this case, the ddoartmentar Pcgedinqs an=d lhe cr rEthe same. It is t.ue tnat ttre nature oTrEr?6-e in the dep,artmental proceedings and in the crimina'i case is gra\/e. The nature of the case raunched against the app'=llant on the basis of evidence und materiar collected against him during enquiry and investigation and as refrected in the charge-sheet, factors mentioned are one and the same. In other words, ihurg"r, evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and the l5 SN. J same. In the present case, criminal and departmental proceedings have already noticed or granted on the same set of facts, namely, raid conducted at the appellant's residence, recovery of articles therefrom. The Investigating Officer Mr V.B. Raval and other departmental witnesses were the only witnesses examined by the enquiry officer who by'relying upon their statement came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case and the criminal court on the examination came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the guilt alleged against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant by its judicial pronouncement with the finding that the charge has not been proved. It is also to be noticed that the iudicial oronouncement was made after a reoular trial and on hot cohtest. Under these circumstances, it would be uniust and unfair and rather oooressive to allow the findinos recorded in the deoartmental proceedinqs to stand.

31. In our opinion, such facts and evidence in the departmental as well as criminal proceedings were the same without there being any iota of difference, the appetlant should succeed. The distinction which is usually proved between the departmental and criminal proceedings on the basis of the approach and burden of proof would not be applicable in the instant case. Though the finding recorded in the domestic enquiry was found to be valid by the courts below, when there was an honourable acquittal of the employee during the pendency of the proceedings challenging the dismissal, the same requires to be taken note of 4gl the decision in PauI Antfiony case [(1999) 3 SCC 679 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 81O1 will apolv. We, fharafara aooellant deserves to be allowed." lnnarl alA laA B) The Aoex Court. in the iudoment dated 3O.O3.199 reoorted in (1999) 3 SCC 679 in M.Paul AA ,*ffii l,i, t6 SN, J

3.4. There is yet another reason for discgrding the whore of the case of the respondents. *.rt O"r.O o,1r ,r"n,,.", conducted at the appeilantb residence and recovery of ""a incriminating articles therefrom.' The findingi recorded by the Inquiry officer, a copy of which r.'ar 0"",i praceo before us, indicate that the charges framed against lrre appertint were sought to. be proved by police bfficers and panch wit,esses, who had raided the house or ine appeilant and hacl effected reco_very. They were the onry witnesses ex.ermined by the Inquiry officer and the tnluiry officer, relying upon their statements, came to the concrusion that the charges were estabrished against the ajpeilant. The san'le witnesses were examined in tne criminai case but the court, on a consideration of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that no search was conducted nor was any reccvery made from the residence of the appettant. rc Uole case of tne, pro tn tnE,ituaEi, therefore, whr:re the appeilant is acquitted by a judiciar pronouncement with the finding that the "raid and reccvery" at the residence of tne appeilant were not proved, it wourd be unjust, unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded at the ex- paft; olpartmentat proceedings, to stand. c) ,t and 29 observed as under: t7 SN, J

28. Exoressions like "benefit of doubt" and "honourably acouitted", used in judoments are not to be understood as maoic incantations. A court of law will not be carried awav bv the mere use of such terminoloov. In the present case, the Appellate Judge has recorded that Ext. P-3, the original mark sheet carries the date of birth ai Z!-4-L972 and the same has also been proved by the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. The conclusion that the acouittal in the criminal oroceedino was after full consideration of the orosecution evidence and that the orosecution miserablv failed to orove the charoe can onlv be arrived at after a readino of the iudoment in its entiretv. The Court in iudicial review is oblioed to examine the substance of the iudoment and not oo bv the form of expression used.

29. We are satisfied that the findings of the Appellate Judge in the criminal case clearly indicate that the charge against the appellant 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" when, after considering the matters before it, the court either believes that it does not exist or considers its non-existence so probable that a orudent man ouoht, under the circumstances of the oarticular case, to act uoon the suooosition that it does not exist. A fact is said to be "not proved" when it is neither "proved" nor "disproved" (see Vijayee Singh v. Stafe of U.P. lVijayee Singh v. Sfafe of U.P., (1990) 3 SCC 190 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 378l ). D) The Division Bench iudoment of this Court in A.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. T.Venkataoati repofted in 1999(1) A.P.L.J. 189(HC), in W.A.No.124 of 1999, dated 04.O2.1999 is extracted hereunder:- i I I i I .,1 -.,!l =jiffi li' I i l8 SN, J

1. l-he writ petitioner was prosecuted for alleged offence of murder of his wife. The death of the wife of pLtitioner took place on 25th of February, 1996. The petitioner was working as Depot controller at srikalahasti Depot of the Anclhra Pradesh state Road Transport corporation (for short the 'R.T.c'). A prosecution was initiated against ine petitioner after registration of crime. In the mean while the dep,artment 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 iriminat case against you as crime No. 30 of 1996 undeisec. 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. 'l-he criminal prosecution initiated against the petitioner ultimately ended in acquittal in s.c.No. 1 of 1997 before the learned IV Additional sessions Judge, Tirupathi by judgment dated 8-8-1997. The said acquittal has become finerl. However, the disciprinary authority in the deprartmental-enquiry, upon compietion of tire 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 pe[ition 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 cherrge framed against him in disciprinary p.ot"edings in yiqy of the judgment of the court. The petitioner- delinquent was entitled to be cleared of the charge in dis':iplinary enquiry and accordingly allowed the writ petition. l._!fallenging the order of the tearned singte Judge, the R'T'.c. has filed this writ Appear. we find no merit in the appeal inspite of the persuasion of the learned counser for -tr#. :, *.ffi #*;l=.iie+'. *.i;;: :-,....; , ,..,:.,. ri*#i{i;::.. *:I l9 SN, J 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 death of the wife. The charge was onlv that petitioner was involved in a criminal case and the said involvement had resulted in framino of a criminal case for offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in course of the enquiry the petitioner had himself stated that death of his wife was result of his delinquency. It is argued that in view of this admission of the petitioner the disciplinary authority was justified in accepting the same and Court cannot reappreciate the evidence. We fail to understand as to how the statement of petitioner was relevant in the instant case. The charoe was onlv for involvement in a criminal case resultino in institutinq of a criminal case aqainst the petitioner. As soon as the criminal case itself was found to be untenable in Court of law, the verv basis of the charqe was knocked out. The charoe should have been quashed as and when the criminal case ended in acouittal. Involvement in a criminal case which was not tenable in Court of law can hardlv amount to anv delinquencv. It cannot be disputed that the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold O disciplinary enquiry on the same charge as is before a Criminal Court because the scope of disciplinary enquiry and a criminal trial is different. But where the charge in the disciplinary enquiry is necessarily dependent 5 on the result of the criminal case if the criminal case itself ends in favour of the delinquent, the charge in the disciplinary enquiry will become unsustainable 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

13. This Court opines that the subject issue needs to be reconsidered bv the 1st respondent herein in view of the \^=,, -- ( I 20 SN, J lawlaid down bv the Aoex Court an variousi qme nts m det ereunder tn t (re r to nd r n v t t2 B P T Vs._T.Vgnkataoati reported an 1999(1) A.P.L.J. 1g9(HCl, (referred to and extracted abovel Taktnq tn

14. a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. cons!derati n:- b). The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on beharf of the petitioner and rearned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. c) The r:ounter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.l to 5 (referred to and extracted above) d) The contents of the impugned order vide proceedings No.Pll I 9(OS) | ZOZ2-pO(rR), dated tg.hO.ZO22 issued by the respondent No.l_(referred to and extracted above) 2t SN, J e) The contents of the order of the acquittal, dated 16.10.2021 passed in SC.No.907 of 2019 on the file of the Court of I Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases Relating to Atrocities Against Women-cum-XVIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (referred to and extracted above) passed in favour of the petitioner herein. j) The observations of the various Courts iudgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below:- i) (2006) s scc 445 ii) (2024) 1 SCC 17s iii) (1e9e) 3 scc 679 iv) 1999(1) A.P.L.J.18e(Hc) The Writ Petition is allowed, the impuoned order vide oroceedinqs No.P1l19(O5)/2022-PO(IR)' dated 19.1O.2O22 issued bv the resoondent No.l is set-aside and respondent Ng.1 is directed to reconsider the reoresentation of the oetitioner, dated O8.O2.2O22 seekino settino-aside the ounishlnent of removal from service imposed aoainst oetitioner bv the disciplinarv I 22 SN, J be no orders as to costs. \ To, 23 SN, J Miscellaneous petitions, if dfly, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand ctosed. ; D/- P.C . SULEKHA DEVI SISTANT REGISTRAR j i/ //TRUE COPY'/ SECTION OFFICER ,3:tIE?""Xrirffi diffi ffi:ilf,,,##1f3:S"S,':T"::,"',""0"n 3: i[:'E:i?nx'.qpff* abad

4. The Divisional 3 5X? B?lfll U'il:urr k-rra[oAn,, ;: ffi cc i" Sru rHooM sRlNlvP 8. Two CD CoPies BN ., CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED i1611212025 1i t"l t sTA t S 25 irrAg 2026 7- t-..; ..n' ; o r'l D E WP.No.21368 of 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @ 2 ? ah