High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of 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 [\/ore particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records concerned in proceedings 43/49/97 Do No. 1882198 dt. 20.10.1998 passed by the 3rd respondent herein and the consequential orders of respondent No 2 herern proceedings RO No. 23212000 No.37l APP/A3/2000 Respondent Battallion since 12 .12 .1985 alleging that the petitioner absented from duty from 28.1 0.1 997 and also alleged that a case of rape U/s .376 of Kowtala P.S. Adilabad District in Cr.No 59/1997 and also the consequential statutory appeal prefered before 2nd respondent that was dismissed vide RO No.23212000(No 37/APSPiA3/2000, dt 29-6-2000) after orders of acquittal passed by the Assistant Judge Asifabad in SC No. 419 of 1998 dt.25.1. 2000 having no a terative and efficacious remedy the above writ petitloner is filed seeking appropriate relief the petitioner begin without employment and severe ill health as such acciCent, Jaundice and Paralysis for several years, now ce(ified to be fit. lA NO: 2 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 suspend the orders cassed by Respondent No. 3 in proceedings No. 43/49/97 Do No. 1882i98, dt. 20-10-1998 and the consequential orders of Respondent No.2 herein rn proceedinrls RO.No. 23212000 NO. 37IAPP/A3/2000 dt. 29-06-2000, by directing reinstating the petitioner into service as Police Constable (pC j 195) in the 3rd Respondent Battalion or any other suitable battalion pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G.ALLABAKASH Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER -.-:,G- ' '-./ ,"/ THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTIC E NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.35219 of 2018 ORDER: The case at hand, precisely, is that the petitioner who was a Police Constable in the then Andhra Pradesh Special Police, appointed vide Proceedings dated 12.12.19as, was dismissed from service by Order dated 20. 10.1998 passed by the 3'd respondent-Commandant, Telangana Special Police Battalion, Kondapur, in the departmental proceedings initiated on the basis of allegations against him for the offence under Section 376 IPC. However, in the judicial proceedings in Sessions Case No.419 of 1998 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Asifabad, the petitioner was acquitted of the charges, by Judgment dated

25.OL.2OOO. Consequent to his acquittal in the Sessions Case, the petitioner frled an appeal before the 2od respondent-Deputy Inspector General of Police, and the sarne was dismissed on

29.06.2OOO. He therefore filed this writ petition challenging his dismissal order dated 20.10.1998, and the subsequent appeal order dated 29.06.2000, contending that he was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge after due trial, and the respondent aqthorities have not considered the factum of acquittal, and \ further the authorities have not conducted the enquiry as per \ \ 2 W.P.No.35219 of 2018 NBK,J due procedure of law, and the alleged victim (named Devi Karmakar) was not examined, and no witnesses were examined zrnd therefore the impugned order of dismissa-l from service is illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard Mr.G.Alla Bakash, learned counsel for the petitioner; and learned Government Pleader for Home (Service) I)erused the re<:ord. :1. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions on the lines of wrir affidavit. He relies on the G.M.Tank vs. State of Gujaratt, and Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Girja Shankar Pant2, artd Kulwant Singh biU ,". State of punjabs. Ile also relies on the Order of this Court in Writ Petition (TR) No.3639 of 2017 , dated 25.01.2024.

4. Learned Government Pleader, based on the counter affidavit, woulci essentially contend that disciptinar5z proceedings and crimina-l proceedings stand on different footing; and further the petitioner has not availed the statutory remedy of revision, against the appellate authority's order dated 29.O€;.2OOO and I I I ' (2006) s scc 446 .] (2001) 1 SCC 182 3 (1991) SCC Suppl (t) 504 3 W.P.No.35219 of 2018 N BK,J t : I l l straight away approached this Court after a huge delay of 18 years, and therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record, it may be noted that it is not in dispute that the petitioner was dismissed from service in the year 1998 based on the departmental enquiry into the allegations against him for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC, and the appeal petition was also dismissed by the appellate authority in the year 2000. This writ petition is filed in the year 2018 challenging the dismissal order passed in the year 1998 (and the appeal order passed in the year 2OOO). There is a huge, unexplained delay of 18 years in approaching this Court. The petitioner, in his reply affidavit, pleads that he met with an accident and became paralytic and was under medical care from 10.02.2000 to l7.lO.2Ol7. This Court, at this distance of time, is not inclined to venture into the truth or otherwise of the pleading put forth by the petitioner, as the illness or accident itself does not disable the petitioner, for about 18 years, from approaching this Court, or availing statutory review remedy. Furthermore, nothing prevented the petitioner to bring the alleged factum of accident/paralytic condition to the notice of appellate 4 W.P.No.35219 of 2018 N BK,J authority/ reviewing authority of the Department at the initial stages of occurrence of accident.

6. At this juncture, it is relevalt to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Couit in Writ Appeal Nos.166O of 20 18 and 593 of 2O16, wherein the Division Bench, by referring to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh (supra| observed as follows: "The delag of 5 to 18 gears was held to be inordinote delag in preferring o ttlit petition under Article 2 .2 6 of the Constitution of India" .

7. [n that view of the matter, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay and laches on the part of petitioner

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stald closed -i coPY/t SD/- P.Ch.Nagabhushamba ASSISTANTREGISTRAR secrH$rrrcen 'rRUE To 1 2 . One CC to SRI G.ALLABAKASH, Advocate [OPUC] . i*" ccrio ci ron uoNae, High Court for the State of Telangana, at . Two CD Copies 3. PSK. TKS Hyderabad. [OUT] S,.,!C1 HIGH COURT DATED:0210412025 ORDER WP.No.35219 of 2018 THE S T4 t t 16 JUL 20?5 }- * A.. ^l Yl: "n.it(,t-i!- :' :. -. - --- a./ DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS $(c.. e \{\{