The High Court · 2025

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Special Branch, Nalgonda and The Enquiry Office(Sri.G.Ramesh). ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated iA the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue order or direction more particularly one in the Writ of liilandamus, to set aside the proceddings C.No.02lA6-1lOEl2O19(1437) dated 25-9-2019 of the 3rd respondent by holding the same unjust, unreasonable, illegal, contrary to the Rule 20 of CCA Rules '1991 and violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the settldd principles of the departmental proceedings and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with I consequential and attendants benefits. i I I lA NO: 1 OF 2019 I Petition unde. S ion 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings C.No.02lA6-11OE12019 dated 25-9-2019 of the 3rd respondent. Counsel for the Petiti oner: SRI UDAY KUMAR KUKKADAPU i Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME I The Court made the following: ORDER a I I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.224O8 OF 2019 ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: "...to issue order or direction more particularly one in the Writ of Mandamus to set aside the proceedings C.No.O2 /A6-l /OE/2019 (1437) dated 25-9-2019 of the 3'd respondent by holding the same unjust, unreasonable, illegal, contrary to the Rule 20 of CCA Rules 1991 and viotation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the settled principles of the departmental proceedings and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with consequential and attendants benefits and to pass...' 2 Heard Sri K.Uday Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home for the respondents. Perused the material on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was recruited as Armed Reserve Police Constable uide proceedings, dated 18.10.2013 and after completion of training, he was posted at District Armed Reserve, Nalgonda. While things stood thus, a case in Crime No.96 of 2019 was registered against the petitioner on the file of the Station House Officer, Nalgonda II Town Police Station, Nalgonda. Basing on the sarne, respondent No.3 placed the petitioner under suspension uide proceedings, dated 12.O4.2019. I I 2 PK,J wp224oa_2o19 Subsequentlv, the respondents issued Article of Charge, dated

17.O4.2OI9, for which, the petitioner submitted his detailed explanation. (ii) Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner received inquiry report, dated 21.08.2019 along with Memorandum, dated 23.08.2019, holding that the charge leveled against the petitioner as 'proved'. In fact, no inquiry was conducted in the presence of the petitioner and he did not receive any notice regarding the schedule of the inquiry. Hou'ever, upon perusal of inquiry report, dated

21.O8.2O19, it is clear that the respondents have not followed the steps lard down under Rule 20 of the Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, (for short, 'the Rules'), 1991. Respondent No.4 appears to have relied on the statements of the witnesses examined by him. But these u,itnesses were not examined in the presence of the petitioner, as the inquiry was conducted in the absence of the petitioner. Therefore, the inquiry report, dated 21.08.2019, is not valid in the eyes of law. Basing on the same, respondent No.3, uide impugned proceedings, dated 25.09.2019, dismissed the petitioner from service by treating his I I I PK,J wp_22408 2019 suspension period from 13.O4.2019 to 25.09.2019 as 'not on duff'. It is further submitted that the Inquiry Officer is supposed to examine the charged employee. Respondent No.3 simply relied upon the inquiry report, dated 2i.08.2019, on the basis of the inquiry conducted in the absence of the petitioner and imposed the punishment. Therefore, the action of respondent No.3 in issuing impugned proceedings, dated

25.O9 .2019 , to the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary. (iii) Learned counsel further submits that the disciplinary authority has not appointed any Presenting Officer. Moreover, as per Rule 2O(5)(c) of the Rules, the disciplinary authority shall appoint a Presenting Olficer. Therefore, learned counsel prays this Court to set aside the impugned proceedings, dated 25.09.2019. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order, dated O5.O9 .2024 , passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.38524 of 2013.

4. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Home submits that one G.V.Ramana Reddy, former Inspector of Police, Specia-l Brach, Nalgonda, lodged a complaint against I 4 PK,J Wp-22404_2O19 tlre petitioner uide Crime No.96 of 2019 on the file of the Station House Officer, Nalgonda II Town Police Station, Nalgonda. f3asing on the same, the petitioner was suspended from service uide proceedings, dated I2.O4.2OI9 Later, an Article of charge, uide proceedings, dated 17.04.2019, \1'as served on the petitioner and as the petitioner failed to submit his written explanation, an oral inquiry was ordered appointing [)eputy Superintendent of Police, DSB, Nalgonda, ) as Inquiry Authority uide proceedings, dated 10.05.2019, who submitted hr s report uide letter, dated 2 I .08.20 19 holding the charge against the petitioner AS 'proved'. The same was supplied to the petitioner on 23.08.2019 calling for his representation. il any. The petitioner has acknowledged the receipt of thr: memo on O4.09.2019 but failed to submit his representatlon (ii) It is further submitted that the petilioner has attended the oral inquiry on all the hearings, prosecution witnesses r.r'e re also examined and the petitioner has cross- examined PW4. However, he did not prefer to cross-examine other witnesses. Further, as per the settled law, there is no bar to proceed against government servart departmentally, 5 PK,J wp 224O4 2Ol9 even if criminal proceedings on the same set of charges are pending. The Inquiry Officer has conducted the inquiry according to the procedure defined under the Rules. Therefore, basing on the e'{idence adduce{ during the oral inquiry, the disciplinary authority has rightly awarded the punishment to the petitioner' Hence, the contentions raised by the petitioner are baseless, false and misleading. Therefore, learned counsel prays this Court to dismiss the Writ Petition.

5. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of record, this Court is of the view that while the petitioner was working as Armed Reserve Police Constable, he was suspended lrom service uide proceedings, dated 12.04.2019, in connection with the criminal case uide Crime No.96 of 2019 tls 419 and 42O of Indian Penal Code, 186O, orl the file of the Station House Officer, Nalgonda II Town Police Station, Nalgonda. Consequently, Articles of charge rzde proceedings in C.No.02l A6-llOE/201'9(14371, dated 17.04.2019, was issued to the petitioner, wherein Article-I reads as follows: 6 PK,J Wp 224oa_2019 "Si P. tJpender, ARPC 3975 has exhibited gross neglect of duty and misconduct bg committing acts of ciminol conspiracg, impersonation and cheating against Police Recntitment Board in Phgsical Effi.ciencg Test alorLgutith tuto otluzrs to facilitate his gounger brother Si Pendem Sathish, Reg.No.1O4213B to qualifu for recruitment to the post of SCf S/ piuil) and SCT PC (Ciuil) on 23.02.2O19 at Mekala Abhinau Stadium, Nalgonda, and got himself inuolued in Cr.No.96/2019 u/s 419, 42O, 468, 471 IPC & Sec. 3 & 4 of A.P. F\tblic Examinotion (Preuention of Malpractices) Act of Nalgonda II (T) PS." The petitioner has submitted his explanation to the 6 above article of charge. Further, an Inquiry Officer was appointed, who submitted his report, dated 21.08.2019 holding the charge against the petitioner S 'proved'. Consequently, respondent No.3, ulde proceedings, dated

25.09.2019, dismissed the petitioner from service by treating his suspension period from 13.O4.2019 to 25.O9.2019 as 'not on duty'

7. The main contention of the petitioner is that Rule 20(5)(c) of the CCA Rules stipulates that when the disciplinary authorit5z conducts an inquiry into charges against a government. servant or appoints an inquiry authority for this purpose, it may appoint :l government servant or a legal practitioner as the "Presenting Oflicer" to present the case in support of the charges. Further, the Division Bench of this I I \ I I 7 PK,J Wp 22408 2Ol9 Court in W.P.No.38524 of 2013, dated 05.09.2024, has categorically held that appointing a Presenting Officer is a mandatory requirement under Rule 20(5)(c) of the Rules. Admittedly, no Presenting Officer was appointed as required under the Rules.

8. Therefore, having regard to the facts ald circumstances of the case and also the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.38524 of 2013, dated O5.09.2024, the impugned proceedings, dated 25.09.2019 are liable to be set aside. Hou,ever, since the crimina-l case registered against the petitioner uide Crime No.96 of 2019 on the file of the Station / House Officer, Nalgonda Ii Town Poiice Station, Nalgonda, on the same set of facts as that of departmental proceedings, is still pending, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to remit back the case to the respondents for conducting fresh inquiry after conclusion of criminal proceedings. 9, Accordingiy, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the proceedings C.No.02lA6-l/OE/2019(1437l,, dated

25.09.2019, issued by respondent No.3 and the matter is 8 PK,J wp 224oa-2o19 C remitted back to the respondents for conducting inquiry afresh, strictlv in accordance with the Rules. Miscellane ous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. i I / That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. Witness THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJAY PAUL, on this Thursday, The Thirteenth Day Of February Two Thousand And Twenty Five SD/- A. SRINIVAS REDDY ASS STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// t'.- SE,CTION OFFICER To, 1 The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Telangana, Hyderabad. Telangana Secretariat, State of

2. The Director GeneAl of Police, Telangana State, Hyderabad. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda Nalgonda District. 4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Special Branch, Nalgonda and The Enquiry Office(Sri.G.Ramesh).

5. One CC to SRI Ufjhy fUtlen KUKKADAPU, Advocate. IOPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies / BSK 6 HIGH COURT DATED:1 3102t20 5 I ORDER WP.N o.22408 of 2019 i ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @*'' Yw t) ,1 a -i Hf S r.q (Jr p 16 APB 2t6 ::iil ;qgE o a