High Court · 2025

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 issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the impugned action of the Respondents in not consideri'ng anO settling the entitled service pension along with all attendant retiral benefits, regularization of suspension period from 28.04.2006 lo reinstatement period i.e., 30.10,2009 as duty period and payment of pay and allowances for the suspension period and further to treat the period from the date of dismissal 09.06.2010 to till the date of retirement 30.06.2012 as Service rendered for counting the same for sanction of full service pension duly passing appropriate proceedings treating the period of dismissal till the age of superannuation as duty period, as illegal, arbitrary and u n-constitutional and consequently direct the respondents to consider and settle the entitled service pension along with all attendant Retiral benefits, regularization of suspension period from 28 04.2006 to reinstatement period i.e., 30,10.2009 as duty period and payment of pay and allowances for the suspension period and further to treat the period from the date of dismissal 09.06.2010 to till the date of retirement 30.06.2012 as Service rendered for counting the same for sanction of full service pension duly passing appropriate proceedings in that regard immediately. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.RAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: SRI M.KRISHNA, GP FOR SERVTCES (HOME) Counsel for the Respondent No.3 & 4: SRI B.RAJESHWAR REDDY, GP FOR AP STATE The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION No.22999 OF 2025 ORDER, (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) . Heard Sri K.Ram Reddy, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Krishna, leamed Government Pleader for Services (Home), appearing for respondent Nos.l and 2 and Sri B.Rajeshwar Reddy, leamed Govemment for State of Andhra Pradesh, appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4. Perused the record.

2. lnstant is the writ petition which has been filed seeking for an appropriate direction to respondent No.3 at the first instance and further to respondent No.1 for taking an appropriate decision on the claim of the petitioner for grant of consequential reliefs in the light of the judgment of the acquittal that has been passed in favour of the petitioner in Criminal Appeal No.689 of 2010 decided on06.12.2024.

3. The facts of the case, in briet are that the petitioner, while working as the Deputy Superintendent of Police (State Cadre Post) in the unified state of Andhra Pradesh, was involved in a Criminal case under section 13(1Xd) R/w l3(2) of the Prevention 2 .1 \ of Comrption Act,1988 (for short "the Act") and the matter was put to trial in Criminal Court in vide C.C.No.3 of 2007. The Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases, Hyderabad, vide judgment dated 07.05.2010 found the charges against the petitioner to be proved and held guilty for the offences and he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years under each count. The said judgment of conviction, dated 07.05.2010, was subjected to challenge in an appeal before this Court in Criminal Appeat No.689 of 2010. The said appeal stood allowed vide judgment dated 06.12.2024. The leamed Appellate Court granting the benefit ofdoubt to the petitioner has set aside the judgment of conviction passed in C.C.No.3 of 2007, dated 07.05.2010, and acquitted him of all the charges under the Act

4. [n between, however, on the ground of conviction order dated 07.05.2010 passed in C.C.No.3 of 2007, the employer of the petitioner vide order dated 09.06.2010 dismissed him from service passing an order of removal. The order of removal from service was only on the basis of the conviction in aforesaid criminal case. The depanment as such has not initiated any disciplinary 7 3 proceedings against the petitioner while passing the order of removal from service dated 09.06.2010. The basis for the removal from service does not survive any further in the light of the judgment of acquittal that has come in favour of the petitioner in the aforesaid Criminal Appeal vide order dated 06-12.2024. Hence, the petitioner, subsequently, has made representations to both respondent No.3, first the State of Andhra Pradesh, as also to respondent No.l, the State of Telangana vide representations dated 21.0 I .2025 and I7 .06.2025 for grant of consequential relief. However, there does not seem to be any decision taken by two respondents on these representations, which has been made by the petitioner. This has led to filing of the present Writ Petition.

5. The contentions of the leamed counsel for the petitioner is that the very basis and foundation for order of removal of service is the judgment passed in criminal case, but the same no longer exists any further in the light of order of acquittal by this Court. As a natural consequPnce, the respondent authorities ought to have a recalled the order of removal of service and should have passed an appropriate order under the provisions of the Fundamental Rules goveming the field to decide as to what the 4 petitioner would be entitled for and it is this that has been prayed lor by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition.

6. Leamed Govemment Pleader appearing for the respondent- State of Andhra Pradesh contends that the petitioner both at the time of conviction and also at the time of removal from services, was working under the unified State of Andhra pradesh, though he was posted in the State of Telangana, before he was sent on deputation to Vishakapatnam, from where he was removed from servtce.

7. It was also the contention that the petitioner, otherwise, seems to be a native of State of Telangana, Nonetheless, the leamed counsel representing both respondent Nos. I and 3 have fairly conceded to the fact that in the teeth of the judgment of acquittal, which has been passed in favour of the petitioner, an appropriate order needs to be passed. However, it also has to be verified, whether the judgment of acquittal in the aforesaid Criminal Appeal is uhder challenge before the Hon,ble Supreme Court or not. 8. Be that as it may, considering the aforesaid factual matrix of the case, where the judgment of conviction was the only basis 5 for the order of the removal from service, dated 09.06.2010, and now, that the judgment of conviction passed in C.C.No.3 of 2007, dated 07.05.2010, rs no longer being in existence after the judgment of acquittal, dated 06.12.2024, in Criminal Appeal No.689 of 2010, as a natural corollary and consequence the petitioner would be entitled for consequential benefits, unless and until the judgment of acquittal is set aside by the Hon'ble I I \ I Supreme Court.

9. In view of the same we do not intend to keep the Writ Petition pending rather ends ofjustice would be met, if this Court disposes the Writ Petition directing respondent No.3 at the first instance to take a decision as to the consequential order that needs to be passed upon the petitioner being acquitted from trial in the aforesaid Criminal Appeal and the order of removal from service being solely on the ground ofconviction. Let an appropriate decision be taken by respondent No.3, positively, within an euter limit of (90) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The two representations by the petitioner filed before respondent Nos.l and 3 be also kept in mind by the authorities while passing the consequential order. 6

10. With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs' Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL PUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFTCER gana State, Dr. B.R. \ To, 1 The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Tel Ambedkar, Telangana Secretariat. Hyderabad State of Telangana 2. The Director General of Police, Telangana' Saifabad, Hyderabad' i The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velgapudi' Amaravati, A.P., State of Andhra Pradesh' 4' The Director General of Police' Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri, Andhra Pradesh.

5. One CC to SRI K.RAM REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] ^ rwo CCs to SRI B.RAJESHWAR REDDY, GP FOR AP STATE, High Court " TfwoCCstoGPFORSERVICES(HOME),HighCourtfortheStateof for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Telangana at HYderabad [OUT] B. Two CD CoPies BSR BS HIGH COURT DATED:05 t08t2025 ORDER WP.No.22999 of zOZs ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS I zbl8 ?{ R 1l-lE S r4 e o /4 (l .) J -) t \.' 2silfiM (1 t (- ], I .A s\{ F4r cr{ED t