The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI J. SUDHEER Gounsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR SERVICES(HOME) The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA ORDER: Heard Sri J.Sudheer, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services (Home) appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2 amended Praver as under: "...to call for the records pertaining to proceedings 2g.O7.2OZt issued by the 3,.d respondent and the consequential proceedings dated L4.02.2O22 issued by the 2nd respondent as bad illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, beyond competence, unfair, contrary to the findings of the Trial Court, dated 01.11.2019 in SC No. 95 of 2018 and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits by issuance of Writ of Mandamus or issue any Writ Order or Direction in the interest of justice and Pass..." 2 Tlra ?) nalilianar rG haF The petitioner was appointed as police constable on

04.11.2009 and got married to one Sampurna on L7.04.20L5. Thereafter, petitioner's wife went to her maternal home for few ) SN, J days and after coming back to the petitioners home the petitioner's wife committed suicide by self immolation on

30.08.201s. It is specific case of the petitioner that based on the co.mplaint given by the father in law of the petitioner, FIR.No.9B/20L5 was registered under section 498-A and 307 of IPC, however, strangely a charge memo, dated 77.02.20L6 against the petitioner was issued by the respondents with the charges of murder. Thereafter, on 26.09.2018 an enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry officer holding that the murder charges were proved and subsequently the petitioner provided the explanation dated 29.L2.2018 stating that the enquiry was not conducted properly and witnesses were not examined during the enquirY. It is further the case of the petitioner that the Trial court had acquitted the petitioner through the judgment 01.11.2019 in S.C.No.95 of 2016 after conducting proper trial on merits. However, the disciplinary authority i.e., 3rd Respondent vide proceedings dated 29.07.2O2t imposed the maximum punishment of dismissal from service ignoring the Hon,ble 3 SN. J acquittal of the petitioner by the Trial court. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner preferred the present writ petition. A. sri B.Anil Kumar, PC 9839 of Market ps was placed under suspension (from the date of his arrest Le. 07-09-2015) vide reference 1 read above, on the Sri B. Anil Kumar, pC 9839 of Market PS was placed under suspension allegations that he married one Sampoorna, R/o Rajapet, Nalgonda District on L7-04-20L5 by taking dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-.He started harassing his wife mentally father-in-law failed to fulfil the demand, he arong with his parents and younger sister and physically for additional dowry of Rs. 1.30.000/- to clear their debts. As his 30-08- 2015 at about 0430 hours, he along with his parents and younger sister poured kerosene on his wife and lit her, due to which she sustained 90o/o burn injuries and hatched a plan to do away with his wife sampoorna. According to their plan on while undergoing treatment died on the sime day at Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. & Sec. 3 & 4 of Dp Act was registered at ps Maddur of warangal Rural District. on the complaint of Sri Janga Mallaiah, a case in Cr. No. 9B/20t5 U/s 498 (A), 307 1pC Subsequenily on receipt of death intimation that Smt. Sampoorna, succumbed to burn was arrested by the Maddur police on 07-09-2015 and remanded to judicial custody injuries, section of law was red to 304 (B), 302 IpC. Sri B. Anil Kumar, PC 9839 and he was lodged in central prison, Warangal. 2) Sri B. Anil Kumar, pC 9839 of Market pS was handed upon with an Article of charge under Rule 20 of TCS (cc&A) Rules, 1991 vide reference 3rd read above, cailing for his written statement of defence, on the charge that he 4 SN. J has ex.hibited gross misconduct by harassing his wife both m.entally and physicaily and subsequenfly-murdered his wife smt. Bodike Sampoorna with ttre herp oi ni. parents for additionar dowry. He arong with nis parents and younger sister hatched a plan to do away with his wife Smt. sampoorna. According to their pran on :o-oa-2015 at about 0430 hours, he arong with his parenti ind younger sister poured kerosene on his wife and rit her, due involving morar turpitude and tarnished the image of porice Department in the eyes of same day at canJni Hospitar, Secunderabad. Thus, he has exhibited g.o;rirconduct to which she sustained 9oo/o burn ri;uries and whire undergoing treatment died on the g"n"rii pubric being a member of a disciprined force, which constitutes gross misconduct and thereby violated Rule 3 and Rure 25-A of TCS (Conduct) Rules, L964. Having acknowredged the articre of charge on l) - 2L'-02.20tG, he had sulmifted his written statement of defence vide reference 4th read above, denying ail the allegations reveiled against him., He requested to drop action on the_ charges pending resurt-- of criminar proceedings in Cr. No. 98/2015 u/5 498(A), 302, 304(8), IPc & sec. 3 & 4 of Dp Act of p's Maddur or wu.ungar Rurar District, If he acquitted u/s 248(1) cr.p.c. t["-riiJi,iglii any recorded in the departmental enquiry will not stand as per the law setiled by the Hon,ble Court. 4) Rule 20 of TCS (cc&A) Rures, 1991. an orar Enquiry was ordered against him on Since the chaiged officer denied the charges, under Rure Sub-rure (z) lrerence 5th read above, by appointing the Inspector of police, Malakpet PS, Hyderabad as Inquiiing Authority to inlri.e into the charges framed against him. ' 5) while the oE was pending with the IA, he was rereased from suspension without piejudice to ine departmentar enqulry pending against him, vide reference' 2;d ;;;; above. 5 SN, J 6) The Inquiring Authority held the inq-uiry by giving reasonable oppoitunity to the charged officer to defend himself during the inquiry. The Inquiring Authority completed the inquiry and submitted his findings vide refeience 6th read above stating that the charged officer in his defence statement stated that how can his spouse give her kerosene by the is officer, his parents and sister-in-law and lit her when she received about 95olo burn injuries can deliver speech while she was scuffling between life and death while undergoing treatment and the charged officer himself claimed thit nis spouse gave statement before the duty doctor while undergoing treatment at Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad that she herself committed suicide by pouring kerosene and lit herself, Contradicting his own statementl When the deceased brought to Gandhi Hospital with 95olo burn injuries can she deliver speech while she was scuffling between life and death and how can she gave a statemenito the duty doctor that she committed suicide by pouring kerosene and lit herself. On perusing the death summary-of the deceased minutely, it is noticed that the deceased Smt. Sampurna was in unconscious state and unable to give proper reply when she was brought to Gandhi Hoipital for admission and while undergoing treatment she succumbed to injuries, so the question of giving the statement to the duty doctor does not arise that ine foureO kerosene and lit herself and attempted suicide' The statements of FWs 1 to 5 and statements of PWs 8 & 9 who are independent witnesses . in whose presence the charged officer admitted his guilt in the commission of offerice along with his parents and sister have supported the prosecufion. Further, during the OE (14) witnesses were examined and the charged officer did not choose to cross examine the prosecution, except PWs1, 2, 3, 8 & 9 which proves his guilt. If he has anything to disprove about - he should have cross examine the the ailegations, witnessei PWs 4, 5, 6, 7 & 10 to 14, which he has failed to do so. The Inquiring Authority submitted his inquiry findings stating that the charges levelled against the cnarged officer are PROVED beyond all reasonable doubts' 7) Under Rule 21 (2) of TCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991, the findings of the I.A. was supplied to the charged officer, 6 SN, J calling for his further representation, if any vide reference 7th read above. -Circle 8) Having acknowledged the receipt of the findings of the IA on 2l-tL-2019, the charged officer Sri B.Anil Kumar, PC 9839 of Kulsumpura pS (f) Market pS had -reference g,i r.eaJ submitted further representation vide above, wherein he mainly contended that the enquiry officer has not examined the witnesses in front of him and mitted further representation vide reference read above, where he charged officer fat B. Anil Kumar, pC of RumpusMv hereafter asked him whether he wants to cross examine the Waitresses JA examined the witnesses and recorded their witnesses.by sending him out and change the IA and do justice to him. 9) In re-sponse to. this office fax rnessages vide references 1lth and 12th read aUore, tne Circle Inspector of Police, Cherial vide reference 13th read above has formed that the case in Cr. No. gB/2OtS U/s 498 (A), 302, 304 (B) PC & Section384 was acquitted on 01_1i_ 2OL9 U/s 235 (1) Cr. p.c. of D.p. Acl of Maddur pS, Siddipet Commissionerate, against the charged officer 10) Whereas, under Rute 9 (x) of TCS (CCBA) Rutes, 1991 it is defined tha_t moral turpitude, forgery and outraging the modesty of women, the penalty of Dismissal Provided that in all proved cases of m isa ppropriation, bribery, bigamy, corruption, from Service shall be imposed. In the instant case the charged officer was Maddur PS of Siddipet police Commissionefute (erstwhile of WaranQal Rural District) and accused in Cr. Nio. 9Bl2015 UlS 498 (A), 302, 304 (B) IpC & Section 3 & 4 D.p.Act to had faced very serious charges of harassing his wife mentally and physically and additional dowry, which is grave in nature and thereby prohibited gross misconduct subsequently murdered his wife with -the hetp of his parents and younger sister-for the general public being a member of a disciplined force, which constitutes gr6ss involving moral turpitude and tarnished the image of police Department in the eyes of misconduct and there-by violated 7 SN, J Rule 3 and Rule 25-A of TCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. As such, he is liable to be punished accordingly. 11) I have gone through the connected records and Minutes of the Oral Enquiry of Sri B. Anil Kumar, PC 9839 of Kulsumpura PS (F) Market PS and his further representation carefully and minutely. The contention of the charged officer that the IA has not examined the witnesses in his presence is not tenable, since the OF has been completed by the IA by giving reasonable to defend himself during the DE, If he had any objection, he would have brought it to the notice of the IA and would have raised his objection in his 3rd oral statement submitted to the IA before conclusion of the Oral Enquiry, but he did not opt to do so and submitted his final explanation to the A without any objection. If he has anything to disprove the charges, he would have cross examine the witnesses PWs 4. 5. 6. 7 & 10 to 14 during the OE. but he failed to do so' During the OE (14) witnesses were examined by the IA and the charged officer did not choose to cross examine the prosecution witnesses, except PWs1, 2, 3, 8 & 9 which proves his quilt. The charged officer is a prime accused, in the above mentioned criminal case pertains to Dowry death of his wife, which is grave in nature. Mere acquittal in criminal case does not mean that the charged officer is Innocent and it cannot absolve him from the charges and the same is only made with an afterthought. The charges made out against the charged officer are amply proved. I fully agree with the findings of the Inquiring Authority, under the circumstances mentioned abovs and also the evidence adduced during the Oral Enquiry, TI m m n n 8 SN. J are extracted hereunder:_ 13' In repry to the averments made in para No.15, it is respectfully submitted that the petitioni:i was under suspension from 07-og-20t5 to 23-08-2016 and considering his request and the circumstances exprained by him he was rereased from suspension on 24-08-2016. He was ha.nded upon with an articie or cnarge on r 7-02-2016 and_subsequenily orar Enquiry against him was ordered on 18-04-2016. He was sirent diring tnu perioo of his suspension and after his rerease from suspi:nsion he had filed w.p. No. 3s857 of 2016, praying 1n!--'Hon,ote High court to direct.the 1" respondent (c.p., Hyderabad) not to g.rocged enquiry pursuant to tne memo pR \o.!ttzO16 (No. L&O/BB/2062/201s), dt: it_oz_2016 til finalization of the criminar case. The Hon,bre High Court issued notice and directed to fire counter- A counter affidavit was fired on 24-06-20L7 praying thL Hon,bre High court to dismiss the w.p. fired by tire puiitionur as it is devoid of merits, in the interest of justice. The matter is pending before the Hon'bre High court for the state of Telangana. 'cnarge ^services 20' It is further submitted that under Rure 9 (x) of Telangana civir^ (crassificuiion, controt and Appeal) Rures, 1991 it is defined that tprovioeo that in ail proved cases 9f misapprop.riation,' OiiO"iv, bigamy. corruptlon, moral turpitude, forgery and ouiraging the modesty of wome_n,_the penarty oF 'oismissar fr.om Service, shall be imposedl. In the instant case tne petitioner was prime accused in Cr. No. 98/2015 U/s 498 ?A), 302, 304 (B) IPC & Section 3 & 4 of D.p. Act of Maddur pS of siddipet Police commissionerate (erstwhire of warangar Rural District) and had faced very serious charges of harassing his wife mentally anO pnysicaf lV and subsequenUy murdered his . wiie with tne' netp of his parents and younger sister for additionar dowry, which is I: 9 SN, J grave in nature and thereby exhibited gross misconduct, i-nvolving moral turpitude and tarnished the image of Police Department in the eyes of the general public being a member of a disciplined force, which constitutes gross misconduct and thereby violated Rule 3 and Rule 25-A of Telangana Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, .1964' As such, he w5s punished accordingly. The Disciplinary Authority had gon6 through the connected records and Minutes of the bral Enquiry of the petitioner and his further representation caiefully and minutely. The contention of thb petitioner that the Inquiring Authority has not examined the witnesses in his presence is not tenable, since the Oral Enquiry has been completed by the Inquiring Authority by giving reasonable to defend himself during the Oral Enquiiy. If fre had any objection, he would have brought it [o the notice of the Inquiring Authority and wouli have raised his objection in his 3rd oral statement submitted to the Inquiring Authority before conclusion of the Oral Enquiry, but he did not opt to do so and submitted his final explanation to the Inquiring Authority without raising any objection. The petitioner is a prime accused in the above mentioned criminal case pertains to Dowry death of his wife, which is grave in nature' Mere acquittal in criminal case does not mean that the charged officer is not committed the misconduct and it cannot absolve him from the charges and the same is only made with an afterthought. The charges made out.againstthe petitioner are amply- proved. Agreed with the findings of the Inquiring Authority'ind also the evidence adduced during the Oral Enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority held the charge against the' peiitioner as 'PROVED' and rightly awarded him the punishment of "Dismissal from Service" in terms of Rule 9 [x) of Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and nppeat) nutes, 1991, besides treating the suspension pliioO w.e.f. 07-09-2015 to 30-08-2016 as 'Not on Duty' ,ia" O.O. No. 5620, dl 29-07-2021 by the following the procedure laid down under Telangana Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. 25. It is respectfully submitted that proceedings in a criminal case and the departmental proceedings can proceed simultaneously with a little exception' Proceedings l0 SN. J in a criminar- case and th.e- departmentar proceedinos operate in distinct and diffe;e-;i :rr,r}.,ionar urua!. departmentar proceedings, where u' .nuig" rerating to misconduct is being inv;#gat9d, tn" f_.t.rs operating in the mind of the disjprinary iutnoritv ;.il; many such as enforcement. of disciprine' or,,to investigate the rever of integrirv of the oetinqueni o],. tn" otn"i-.iJir, ,r.,. standard of proof ,u0,1,::d^,1J1+ ploceedinss is aC different than that required.in a criminar'case. wnite inlnu departmentat proceedings the standard of proof is one of preponderance of probabirities in a criminar case, the .nuigu has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonabre doubt. . Departmental proceedings . and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneousty as there is no bar in their being io.Or.ted simultui.l.,rrf v, though separately and a simitar view has O""n--t.tun by the Hon'bte Apex gSytl, jrJgr'ul,ts reporr"J in'ArR 1992 Sc 1e81, 200s rl),;cc ioii )ool fgi siC iis, 2oo7 (Lo) scc 3Bs, zocia'(B) StC Z611ro 200e (2) scc s70. It is submitted that the two-proceedings, :riminar and departmentar, ..g entirery .i.[;;il:"+,n?i operate in different fierds and have Jiire.ent objectivei.'wn.."as the object of criminar triar ; ;;'inni.t appropriate punishmenr on the offender,. the purpor"' deat with ,n"._1"]ini;;.[-;;partmentairv *o to impose ?f ."nqr,r,'rroLuoings is to penarty in accordance witn inE service rures. i. u criminar trial, incriminating statemeni made by the accused in certain circumstances oi o"lor" certain officers is totary inadmissibre in .evidence. sil'strict ,ur", oi Jvidence and r#'J"i; * t: .t ,*,"u, =0,o.. fi:':5xi:" Y" : lo ;;: i co n v i cti oln i s o i ne le n i r.o,,' iij ", ,i:#:::?";1. #, to record the commission or oetinqi"n.v. fnJ".rr" rerating ""JS'L; to appreciation of eviden."' in'in"'yo-pro."io,ng, is arso not similar. In criminal l;*; iurOen of proof is on the prosecution and unlels tn" Jlor"cution i, #1" io prove the guilt of the accused "beyonE ,."-uronubre doub1,i, n" cannot be convicted by a court'or riw. l;#;.;;;iar on the other hand, O"nuity' .un be imposed on the enquiry, e d i n s s SN, J delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of "preponderance of probabif ity. 27 ' It is so submit that the aregations made by the petitioner are not tenabte and is onryhade an afterthought with an intention to escape from fire punisnn.,unt imposed on him' The orar Enquiry was conducted, ui pu,. rures and by giving reaso.nabte opportunrlv to the petitioner, to defend himserf during the or;r Enquiry. inJ.u is nothing illegal on the part oithe respondent in issuing impugned olg.".j: disciptinary action *ur tur.". ,i.iiirv in' u..oroance with Terangana civir services tcrasiini.ffi; controt and Appeal) Rules, 1991. In a criminar .ui" iiiiplrishment for crime, whereas in departmentar proceedi";J[ is a penarty for misconduct and about tnu iuitabirity of"the-emproyee to wo1k. Hence, it is.crearry estabrished in the o.r. that the petitioner did indurge in misconduct. rne preponderance of probabirity exists- . Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 5 a) The court of the v Additionat sessions Judge, rr-FTc, Warangal at Jangoan, through its judgment, dated 1'11.2019 in s.c.No.95 of 2o16 herd that the petitioner was found not guirty for the offences registered against the petitioner under section 4gg-A, 302, 304-8 of the rndian penar code and under sections 3 and 4 0f the Dowry Prohibition Act and consequentty, the petitioner got acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.p.C. 4--'" ;il n t2 SN. J b) The above criminat case registered against the petitioner had been the basis for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and the same is evident from the charge rnemo, dated L7.02.2016 issued by the 3"r respondent to the petitioner initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. c) rn view of the fact that the criminal case registered against the petitioner had rendered in acquittar, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner are liable to be dropped and the Writ petition needs to be allowed as prayed for. 6' Learned Assistant Government pteader for services(Home) appearing on beharf of the respondents placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on beharf of the respondents (referred to 13 SN. J and extracted above) contends that in a criminal case, it is punishment for crime, whereas in departmental proceedings, it is a penalty for misconduct and about the suitability of the emptoyee to work and therefore, since it is clearly estabtished in the oral enquiry that the petitionerindulgedinmisconduct.Hence,theWrit Petition is not maintainable and the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition. t4 ,, SN, J t\ be iustified and the relevant oaraoraph Nos.3O and 31 of the said order are extracted hereunder: 3O. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents are distinguishable on facts and on law. In this case, the deoartmental the same. It is true that the nature of charge in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal case is grave. The nature of the case launched against the appellant on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during enquiry and investigation and as reflected in the charge-sheet, factors mentioned are one and the same. In other words, charges, evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and the 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 l5 SN, J 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.

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 appellant 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 and aopellant deserves to be allowed." B)

34. There is yet anoth the case of the respon er reason for discarding the whole of dents. As pointed out earlier, the i l t6 SN, J They were the ont namely, 'the raid conducted at the ap pellant's residen ce and recovery of incriminating articles therefrom.'The findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, a copy of which h as been placed before us, indicate that the charges framed against the appellant were sought to be proved by Police Officers and Panch witnesses, who had raided the house of the a ppellant and had effected recovery y witnesses examined by the Inquiry Officer and the I nquiry Officer, relying upon their statements, came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the crimin al case but the court, on a cons ideration of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that no search was cond ucted nor was a ny recovery made from the residence of the appellant. The . In this situation, the refore, where the appellan acquitted by a judicial pronouncement with the fi nding that the "raid and recovery at the residence of the appellant were not proved it would be unjust, u nfair and rather op pressive to allow th e findings recorded at the ex- parte departmental proceedings, to stand. n c) ,, and 29 observed as under:

28. ,, such terminoloov. In the present case, the Appellate Judge has recorded that Ext. P-3, the original mark sheet carries the date of birth as 2 L-4-L972 and the same has also bee n proved by the w itnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution t7 SN. J acquittal in the criminal proceeding was after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and t?rat the prosecution miserablv failed to prove tJre gh?rge can onlv be arrived at after a reading oittre iudqment in its entirety. The Court in judicial review is oblioed to examine the substance of the iudoment and not go by 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 orobable that a prudent man ouqht, under the circumstances of the oarticular case. to act uoon the supoosition that it does not exist. A fact is said to be "not proved" when it is neither "proved,, nor "disproved" (see Vijayee Singh v. Sfafe of U.p. lVijayee Singh v. Stafe of lJ.P., (1990) 3 SCC 190 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 37Bl ). D) The Division Bench judqment of this court in A.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. T.Venkatapati reoorted in 1999(1r A.p.L.J. 189(HC). in w.A.No.124 of 1999, dated 04.o2.1999 is extracted hereunder:-

1. The writ petitioner was prosecuted for alleged offence of murder of his wife. The death of the wife of petitioner took place on 25th of February, Lgg6. The petitioner was working as Depot controller at srikalahasti Depot of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport corporation (for short the 'R.T.c'). A prosecution was initiated against the petitioner after registration of crime. In the mean while the l8 SN, J department initiated following charge departmental proceedings on the "For having invorved in a criminar case of aileged kiiling on 25-2-1996 which has resurted in framing ?iminat case against you as crime No. 30 of 1996 unoeisec . 302 of the Indian penar code (I.p.c) by Muthyarareddypari police station which amounts misconduct under sei. 29 (xxxi) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees Conduct Regulations, 1963.,, 2. The criminar prosecution initiated against the petitioner ultimately ended in acquittar in s.c.rvo. 1 of 1997 before the rearned IV Additionar Sessions Judge, Tirupathi by judgment dated B-B-1997. The said acqurtttot nu, become final. However, . the disciplinary authority in the departmentar-enquiry, upon compietion of the enquiry passed orders on 28-11-1996 removing the petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred app6ar uguinrt the said order' The same was dismissed. rnu ;r;'; ;etition was also dismissed by the Regionar Manager of the R.T.c. As a resurt, the petitioner filed the writ pe[ition to chailenge the order of his removat. 3' The learned Singre Judge herd that 1 the disciprinary authority was in error in.hording the petittneiguirty of the charge framed against him in"disciprinuiv pro=ceeoings in yigy of the judgment of the court. petitioner- delinquent was entiiled to be creared of the charge in disciplinary enquiry and accordingly allowed the writ petition. 'rt.,u

4. Challenging the order of the learned single Judge, the R.T.C. has filed this Writ Appeal. We find no merit in the appeal inspite of the persuasion of the learned cou nsel for the appellant-R.T.C. We have already pointed out as to what charge was fra med in the disciplin ary enquiry against the petitioner. It ha s to be noted that the charge was not for the substantive act of having ca used death of the wife. l9 SN, J 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 It cannot be disputed that the disciplinary authority is entiued to hotd o disciplinary enquiry on the same charge as is before a criminal court because the scope of disciprinary 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 disciprinary enquiry will become unsustainable one. In the facts and circumstances of thb 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 ailowing the petitioner's claim.

9. one. 20 SN, J 11 A bare perusal of the consequential proceedings, dated L4.O2.2O22 issued by the 2nd respondent indicates that the sanre had been rejected on the ground that the acquittalgrantedinfavotlrofthepetitionerbythetrial court is not a crear acquittal, but the petitioner was acquittecl by giving benefit of doubt' L7,, This court opines that the 2"d respondent is bound to consider the verdict, dated o1.11'2019 passed in S.C.No.gSof2ot6onthefileofVAdditionalSessions JudgerII-FTC,WarangalatJangaonsecuredinfavourof the petitioner in its entirety, and. not mechanically reject the appeal preferred by the petitioner ignoring the clear finding in favour of the petitioner in the said judgment that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyondreasonabledoubtfortheoffenceswithwhichthe Petitioner stood charged' L 2t SN, J

13. This court also takes note of the fact as borne on record that the charge Memo issued by the 3'd respondent is dated 17.(J2.2016 and the finar order impugned passed by the 3'd respondent is dated 2g.o7.2021, hence, there is a considerable delay in concluding disciplinary proceedings. a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government pleader for services Home appearing on behalf of the respondents. c) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents (referred to and extracted above) d) The order impugned D.O.No.S 620,, No.L&o/Bgl2o67lzotst dated 29.07.2021 issued by the 3'd respondent (referred to and extracted above) i i 22 SN, J e) .The judgment, dated 01.11.2o19 in s.c.No.95 of 2016 on the file of v Additional sessions Judge, u-FTc, Warangal at Jangaon. f) The judgments of the various courts(referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted betow:_ D (2006) s scc 44 v) (2o1o) 9 SCC a96 23 SN, J Miscellaneous petitions, if dtry, pending in this writ Petition, shall stand closed. -) SD/-P. PONNA KRISHNA SISTANT REGISTRAR /ffRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principat Secretary to Government, The Department, Secretariat, Hydera bad. Telangana, Home

2. The Director General of Police, State of Telangana, Police Headquarters, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad.

3. The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad Commissionerate, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.-

4. One CC to Sri J. Sudheer, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CC to The GP for Services(Home), High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad[OUT]

6. Two CD Copies \$. To, TJ LS HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED:2210712025 =.{ WP.No.34547 ot 2022 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION THOUT COSTS S