In State of Karnataka v. umesh

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to the impugned Charge Memo No. A6/39/ & 40/PR/IIZB|1999-2015, dated -5-2015 and its connected orders appointing the Enquiry officer vide No. A6/39&40/PR/NZB/1999-2015, dated 26-6-2015 and quash the same with all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D.BALA KISHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES-I IT lTlo NO 2476 oF 201 Between: G.Prasad.a.Rao, S/o Rama Rao, aged about 46 years, Occ A.R.p.C.No.1429 (Constable), DAR Head quarters, N'izamaOad nyo NizamaUia AND ...PETITIONER

1. The State of Telanoana,-pq .Secretariat, Hyderabad-Sbo[Zi' -by its principal Secretary, Home Department, --

2. The Director General of police, State of Telangana, Hyderabad_S000o4. 3. The superintendent of Porice, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District-so30oi. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of rhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to lssue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus decraring the action of the respondents in not considering the name of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Head constable on the ground of pendency of disciprinary proceedings against the petitioner as iflegar, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and contrary to Article 14 of the constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents to consider the name of the petitioner for promotion as Head constabre without reference to the charge memo No.A6- 39&10/PR/NzBl1999-2o1s issued by the 3rd respondent and promote him as Head Constable with all consequential benefits. OF NO 1 Petition under Section 15i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondents to consider the name of the petitioner for promotion . as Head Constable without reference to the charge memo No.A6- 39&40/PR/NZB/1999-20i5 issued by the 3rd respondent pending disposar of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N.GANGADHAR Counsel forthe Respondents: Gp FOR SERVICES-I WRIT PETITION NO: 11546 oF 2018 Between: V,Ven!a! Rao, S/o. V.Koneru, aged about 59 years, Retired A.R.P.C.No. 2316, DAR Head Quarters, Nizamabad, Fi/o. Nizamabad. AND

1. The Superintendent of Police, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District. 2. The Director General of Police, State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 3. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad-500 022- ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ot lhe 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 one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in withholding the pension and other retirement benefits of the petitioner consequent on his retirement from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31-7-2016 without any justification or reasonable cause on the untenable ground that disciplinary proceedings were pending vide Charge Memo., No.A6- 39&40/PR/NZB/1999-2015, dated 18-5-2015 issued by the 1st respondent even though the very same set of charges were already considered by the competent criminal court and held that the petitioner is not guilty of the offences and released from criminal charges vide Judgment in C.C.No. 116tpt2Oo1, dated 18-2-2012 and that the Hon'ble Tribunal has categorically held in its orders in O.A.No. 6370 and 6371 of 2012lhat since the competent criminal court on merits has acquitted the applicants, the respondents now cannot conduct departmental enquiry on those very allegations against the applicants is as illegal, arbitrary, and subversive of Articles 14, '16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently hold that the petitioner is entitled for release of full pension and other retirement benefits consequent on his retirement from service with all consequential benefits including interest on belated payments. LA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 respondents to release the pension and other retirement benefits of the petitioner without reference to pendency of departmental proceedings vide Charge [Vlemo No. A6-39&40/PR/NZBtlggg- 2015, dated 1B-S-2015 issued by the 1s! respondent, pending disposar of the above writ petition. counsel for the Petitioner: sRl sRlNlvASA RAo MADTRAJU Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR SERVTCES-I The Gourt made the following: COMMON ORDER i I I I wp(tr)J754_2017 md wp 24765 2017and wp_l1546 2018 NBK, J THE HON'BLE SRI NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA AND NN AND COMMON ORDER: The petitioners are Police Constables working under the control ofthe 3rd respondent-Superintendent of Police, Nizamabad. They were posted as Gunmen to a public representative, and attached to ID duties. On the grounds that they were on unauthorized absence from irnportant duties on 15.08.1999, and were also allegedly involved in the exchange of fake currency for genuine curency in Mumbai by colluding with habitual offenders from Nizamabad, a criminal case, Crime No. 66 of [999, was registered against them for offences punishable under Sections 420,489(8), and 120(8) of the IPC.

1.1 The petitioners were initially suspended from service from 15.08.1999 to 22.08.2000 and were subsequently dismissed from service by proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 21.03.2000. The appeal and revision petitions filed by the petitioners before the appellate and reviewing authorities were also disrpissed. Aggrieved by their dismissal from service without even an enquiry into the matter, the petitioners filed O.A. Nos. 6370 and 6371 of 2012 before the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the dismissal orders and directed the 2 wp(tr)_4754_2017 and wp_24765_2017 and wp_l1546 2018 NBK. J reinstatement of the petitioners into service, vide common order dated

11.07.2014. The criminal proceedings in Crime No.66 of 1999 also ended in the acquittal of the petitioners.

1.2 Subsequently, the 3rd respondent, vide irnpugned Charge Memo No. 46-39 .& 40|PRA{ZBI1999-2015 dated 18.05.2015, framed Articles of Clharge against the petitioners to initiate departmental proceedings. It is the grievance of the petitioners that, despite their acquittal in the criminal case, the respondent-Department issued the impugned Charge Memo based on the very same allegations, rendering it illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard Mr. Balakishan Rao and Mr. N. Gangadhar, learned counsel for the petitioners; and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I. Perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners, reiterating the submissions made

3. in the writ affidavit, contends that since the petitioners have been acquitted in the criminal proceedings, the initiation of departmental proceedings on the same allegations is illegal. Therefore, the impugned C--harge Memo is liable to be set aside.

4. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, relies on the judgment of the [{on'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 3 l79l of 2023 and contends that departmental and criminal proceedings are independent of each other, with different scopes and objectives. As such, departmental proceedings can be pursued irrespective of the outcome of the criminal proceedings. 3 wp(tr)_4754 2017 and wp-24765 2017 and wp_l1546 2018 NBK, J

5. Having considered the respective contentions and upon perusal of the record, it may be noted that it is settled law that criminal and departmental proceedings stand on different footings, with distinct scopes and objects of determination. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in W'P' No' 3l7gt of 2023,dated 2l.ll.2023,held as follows: ,,10. It is a cardinal prtnctple of law that an acquittal in a criminal trial has no bearing or releuance on the disciplinary p.roceedings as the standards of priof in both the cases are dffirent and proceedings iperate in lirrrit fields and with dffirent obiectives (See Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v- Dilip Uttam Jayabhay (2022) 2 SCC 696)). In State of Karnataka v. umesh ((2022) o'scc i6s1, th, supreme court once again held that rules of evidence which opp,ty to a criminal trial are disttnct from those which govern a discipliniiy enquiry. Therefore, acquittal of the accused in a criminal case does'not iebir the employer from proceeding in the exercise of disciplinary iurisdiction. Similar vtew was taken by Supreme Court in Stati Aari i7 trdia v. P. Zadenga (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1240) and tn paragraph 17.2, it was held as under: ,,17.2 In Karnataka Power Transmission Corpn. Ltd v. C. Nagaraiu (2019) I0 SCC 367, it was observed: g. Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer fro* exercising the power to concluct depar-tmental proceedings in accordance wilh the riles and regilations. The two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely dffirent' They operate in different fields and have different obiectives tAii! Kuiar Nag v. Indian Oil Corpn' Ltd', (2005) 7 SCC 7641. In the dtsciplinary proceedings, the question is whither the respondent is guilty of such conduct as would merit his removal from service or a lesser puntshment, as the case may be, whereas in the crimtnal proceedtngs, the question is whether the offences registered against him under the PC Act are eitabltshei, and if established, what sentence should be imposed upon him. The standard of proof, the mode of inquiry and the rules governing inquiry and trial in \ \ \ I , \ 4 wp(tr\_4754 2017 and wp 24765 2017 and wp_ I 1546_2018 NBK, J t J both the cases are significantly distinct and dt/ferent. fState of Rajasthanv. B.K.Meeno (1996) 6 SCC 417J" [n view of the settled law that disciplinary proceedings and criminal

6. proceedings operate in a different field and scope, this Court is not inclined to quash the impugned Charge Memo No.A6-39 & 40/PRAIZBllggg-2015 dated 18.05.2015.

7. [t is represented that the petitioner in W.P. No.'24765 of 201 7 is in service, but his name is not being considered for promotion to the post of Head Constable due to pending disciplinary proceedings. 'the petitioner in W.P. No. I 1546 of2018 has already attained the age of superannuation, yet his pension and retirement benefits have not been paid for the same reason.

8. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.31,791 of 2023 dated 21.11,.2023, the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the 3'd respondent-Superintendent of Police to complete and conclude the departmental proceedings, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. l'he petitioners shall be afforded oppomunity of hearing and produce evidence if any in support of their case. Based on the outcome of the departmental proceedings, appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. /TRUE COPY/ SD/. U. SUDHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department' Secretariat' Hyderabad' State of Telangana-500022'

2. The Director General of Police, State of Telangana, Hyderabad-500004 3. The superintendent of Police, Nizamabad' Nizamab-ad District-503001 ./ .l

4. One CC to SRI D'BALA KISHAN RAO' Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI N'GANGADHAR' Advocate [OPUC] 6.OneCCtoSRISRINIVASARAOMADIRAJU'AdvocatelOPUCl )-r' I rr,r I vvur TTwoCCstoGPFoRSERVICES-I,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaatl / Hyderabad tourl

8. Two CD CoPies BSR GJP \ / , .'--* .,.-,..--.j,.. . + ",..i--,-!,yi : i ii :*,,ra*r.ytre) rsjr.: HIGH COURT DATED: 2610612025 t/ N ORDER c WP(TR).N o.4754 ot 2017 AND WP.No.24765 of 2017 No.11546 of 2018 \ \ \ lHE sr4 14: + J) 18 tl0v &[ .; // o \'i- t i l) DISPOSTNG OF ALL THE WRIT PETITIONS, OUT COSTS \