Heard Sri v. Ravichandran

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that rn the circumstances stated in the affidavrt filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriaie writ. order or Direction more particularlv one rn the nature of Writ of A,4andamus by declaring action of the 3,d Znd 2"d Respondents in imposing and confirrning the major penalty of dismissal from service" besides the treatrng the period of suspension from 23-10-zo2i to 31-o3- 2022 as "Not on Duty'vide impugned D o. No r3653 (No L & orBVB1rg5l2o21- 22) daled 16-12-2022, and Rc. No. 146fi212023 dated 23-04-2024 Ihough cnminal proceedings are pending vide c.c. No. 1 1047 of 2o2i on same set of facts and evidences and there was no evidence in the departmental enquiry pointing towards Petitioners guilt, as being arbitrary, erroneous, irrational, unreasoned, unjust, based on no evidence and in violation of Article 14 of the constitution of lndia and consequently set-aside the same accordingly and further be pleased to hold that the Petitioner is enti ed to be reinstated into service with all consequential benefits duly treating the period of suspension from 23-10-2021 to 31-03-2022 as on duty for all purposes in the interest of justice in the interest of justice and to pass lA NC: 1 OF 2024 Petition uncier Section 151 CPC praying that in the l rcunstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Coud may be pleased to direct the 2nd Respondent to re-consider the order issuecj jr Rc No. 146lf 212023 daled 23-04-2024 keeping in view the provisions of StarCrn3 Order No '1 50 Telanqana Police lvlanual and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl. V RAVICHANDRAN Counsel for the Respondents: Government Pleader for Services (Home) The Court made the following: ORDER -7 -( HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO UIRIT PETITION No. 33139 of 2024 ORDER: This Writ Petition is Illed to declaue thc action of the

3.d and 2'.d respondents in imposing and conhrming the major penaity of "dismissal from service" of the petitioner, besides treating the period of suspension from 23.1O.2021 to 31.03.2022 as "Not on Duty" vide impugned D.O. No. 13653 (No.L&O/BI lBr l9sl2o2t 22), datcd 76.12.2022, and Rc.No.146/T2 12023, dated 23.O4.2024 respectively, as iilegal.

2. Heard Sri V. Ravichandran, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services (Home), appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner subrnits that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Police Constable (Civil) on 06.12.2014. While working as a Police Constable at P.S Mirchowk, Hyderabad, he was placed under suspension vide proceedings dated 23.1O.2021 , issued by w Z the 3'd respondent, alleging that he was inr'olverl in Cr.No. 2OSl2O2l initially registered u/s 337 (later etltcred to 304- A) of the L-rdian Penal Code and Sections U1. 196 of the M otor Vehrcles Act. Later, the petitioner u,as reinstatcd into scrvicc vide proceedings dated 3I.O3.2(Ll2

4. Learne d counsel for the petitioner lirr-thcr submits that, 1n r(rspect of the above alleged incident ernd irr exercise of power conferred under Rule 2O cf TSCS (CC&A) Rules, 19() 1 . disciplinary proceedings \\'erc initiatcd against thc petitioncr vide charge memo dar.e'd 31.O3.2022 issued by the 3.d respondent.

5. Learnccl counsel for the petitioner I'rrrthcr submils that denying the allegations contained;rL the charge memo, thr: petitioner submitted a dcfence wr-itten statement on 07.04.2022, requesting the 3"' responclent to drop furthcr action as he had not driven tlrt: vt:hicle in a rash and negligent manner as mentioned in the r:harge memo. Without assigning reasons for not acct:pting the above request, the 3'd respondent had appointed Enquiry Oflrcer vide proceedings dated 22.04.2022 The Enquiry -5$:*.!/ -,-,_ :....,/ 3 d Oflrcer submitted his report vide ietter dated 24.10.2022 holding the charges AS proved. As per the Proceedings dated Memo dated 03.11.2022, the 3'd respondent, while communicating the minutes of thc enquiry, has called for the petitioner's further representation.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner submitted one more representation on

12.11.2022, inter alia stating that there is no evidence to prove the misconduct; that the Enquiry Ofhcer held the charges as proved without examining the two eye witnesses and finally requested the 3'd respondent to exonerate him of the charges levelled in the departmental proceedings.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the 3'd respondent vide impugned D.O. No. 13653 (No.L&O/BI lBIl95l2O2t-221, dated L6.t2.2o22, had imposed the punishment of "Dismissal from service" besides treating the period of suspension from 23.10.2021 to 31.03.2022 as "Not on Duty." 4

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner firrther submits that aggrievecl by the impugned order of penaltf issued by the 3,d respondent, the petitioner prcferr:d a statutory Appeal to the 2"d respondent on O2.Ol.2tll23, inter ah:r. pointing out the de flciencies in the findings of thc trnquiry Oflicer ald the order of the disciplinary authority, respectively-

9. Learnecl coultsel for the petitioner lirrther submits that the 2','i respondent had rejected thc Appezrl vide Rc.No. 146 112/2023, dated 23.O4.2024, sr-ating that the petitioner dicl not have a driving license. Aslgrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a Revision Petition on

26.06.2024 to the ()overnment, which is pending. Hencc, the present Writ Petition.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that enquiries revcaled that on 26.06.2021, the petitioner carnc to Chatrinal<a PS along r,r,.ith crime the vehiclt: Scorpio and surrendered before the Investigating C)fhcer. The petitioner revea-led his particulars and also stated that he did not have a driving license, the vetLicle was not i l I i I I I I i ) i @..:7 5 registered in his name, and he a-lso did not have insurance for the vehicle. 1 1. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the Regional Transport Office (RTO), t3aldlaguda, inspected the crime vehicle. He statcd that the accident was occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicie and imposed a hne of Rs.6,525/- upon the vehicle u,hich the petitioner paid. The petitioner had shown gross negligence and a reprehensible attitude by driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner without possessing a valid driving licence and was involved in a fatal incident. Thus, the petitioner acted in a mElnner unbecoming of a member of Government Service and thereby, he had willfully contravened Rule 3 (1), (2) & (3) of Telangana Civil Serwices (Conduct) Rules, 1964. L2. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that as per the statements of prosecution witnesses (1 to 5), it is established that the petitioner drove the Scorpio vehicle bearing No.AP-O3L-3366 in a rash & negligent manner and hit the deceased T. Karan Raj at Hanuman w 6 Nagar, Uppuguda. Hyderabad. Due to t1ris, he received injuries and he u'as shifted & admitted to Esra l{ospitai by the petitioncr accontpanicd by familv membr:rs of decr:ased. Later, the injurcd succumbed to rleath 13 Learncd counscl lor the respondents fr rrthr:r submits that the contention of the petitioner thal the )oc1 respondent r.c., Director General of polir:e:, Telangala, Hyderabad, had omitted to advert to any of the grounds raised in Lhr: Appcal, is not correct. 'lhe Appellate Authority i.e., the Director General of polir:e, Telangana Hyderabad, had carefully ald minutely reviewed the appeal petition of the petitioner and the related pR records. The petitioner was driving the vehicle without a driving license. He had himself admitted the same. As such. his appeal was considered and rejected 23.04.2024. Regarcling this, the petitioner preferred a revision, which is pending

14. Learned counsel for the respondents fur.ther submits that even though the orders from the Gover.nment about the Revision Petition are awaited, the petitioner ;rs,*1F 1 approached this Court against the punishment of "Dismissal lrom Service." Further, a criminal case is pending against the petitioner. At this juncture, it is not justifiable to be reinstated into duty. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

15. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel lor respective parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner preferred a Revision before the authorities, ald the same is pending. In view of the pendency of the revision, the question of reinstatement of the petitioner does not arise. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the Revision Petition of the petitioner, dated 26-06.2024' wouid meet the ends of justice'

16. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to consider the Revision Petition of the petitioner, dated 26.06.2024 altd pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. w Miscellancous petitions, if any, pendit'Lg sha1l stand closed SD/. S.MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,/ //TRUE COPY// @ SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat'T S State of Tela n ga na. HYderabad.

2. The Direct r General of Police, Telangana State, Sa abad Hyderabad' 3. The Commiss oner of Police, Hyderabad City, Hyderlrt'rad ' 4. One CC to SRI V RAVICHANDRAN Advocate [OPLIC] 5TwoCCstcGPFORHOMEDEPARTIVENT,HighOc'urtfortheStateof Telangana iOUTI

6. Two CD CcPrcs ASV TKS s t) ! / t \ra\. ,\ .S ,-4 /1: L .l 1 0[i ZW 6I /)t \..i q "n rc H€0. 'lttr. HIGH COURT DATED:2210912O25 ORDER WP.No.33139 of 2024 \\.RI'I PETITI()\ tS DISPOSED OIT \\'ITTIOUl' COST c\