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 an appropriate Writ' Order of direction' preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the lmpugned Proceedings in R.O.No.66/2016 / Rc.No.O1/PR/West Zonet2O16' dated 09.03'2016 of the 3rd respondent rejecting the revision and consequential proceedings in Memo No.92(P)/Ser.lltA1t2O17 dated 31 'O5'2O17 of the 2nd respondent' wherein the request of the petitioner was rejected is highly illegal' arbitrary' unreasonable' discriminatory and also in violation of Art' 14' 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and declare the same as bad in law and set-aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to release two RTSP (Reduction in Time Scale of Pay) by two stages for 2 years and release future increments and pension and with all consequential benefits ..t d, :, l I I I I I I i i I I I I I l.A. NO:1O F 2017(WPMP. NO: 51811 oF 20171 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspEND the rmpugned proceedings in R.o.No.66/2016 / Rc.No.01/pR*est Zoner2016, dated 09.03.2016 0f the 3rd respondent and consequential Proceedings in [,4emo No.92(p)/Ser.iltA1r2o17 dated-31 .os.2o1r of the 2nd respondent and release two RTSp (Reduction in Time Scale of pay) by two stages for 2 years and rerease future increments and pension and with a consequential benefits pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. C. RAJA SEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER I wp-41714]oLl NBK, J THE HON'BLE SRI JUS TICE NAG EStI BHE E WRIT PET ITION No. 41714 f 201'l o ORDER: The case at hand, precisely' is that the petitioner' who is a Police Constable, was issued a Charge Memo dated 2l'02'2009 alleging that while he was working at Veepanagandla Police Station and assigned the Court duties, he handed over the seized tractors to the accused (owners of the tractors), by coltuding with the accused' without there being any permission of the competent authority; and further he deserted the Department by resorting to unauthorized absence for 2l days' In relation to the same offence' a case in Crime No'67 of 2008 for the offences under Sections 406 and 409 read with 34 of IPC was also registered against the petitioner and two others; and after investigation charge sheet was filed, and the same was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class' Kollapur' as C'C'No 'l2l of 2009' After due trial, the learned Magistrate' vide Judgment dated 20'09'2OlO' acquitted the Petitioner and others ' However, on the departmental front' the petitioner's explanation to the Charge Memo,, having been found not satisfactory' disciplinary proceedings were initiated' The petitioner participated in the disciplinary proceedings, and pursuant to the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Oflicer, the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the petitioner. Petitioner f,rled an appeal' and also revision petitions before the departmental authorities, however' they were all rejected' 2 wp-4777 4_2O77 N8K, J Thereafteq the petitioner approached the A.p. Administrative Tribunal, by filing O.A.No.63 52 of 2013 . The learned Tribunal, after due enquiry by order dated02-0g.2014, set aside the p,nishment of dismissar from service imposed by the 4th respondent (apart llom setting aside the consequential orders of rejection of appear, and arso revision petitions) and remitted the matter back to the 4th respondent directing to impose a lesser penalty, other than dismissar/compulsory retirement. The Tribunal further directed to treat the period ofabsence ofthe petitioner as eligibre Ieave, apart from directing to treat the period between date of dismissal and reinstatement as continuity of seruice for pension and seniority, without monetary benefi t. As per the Tribunal,s Order dated 02.Og.2Ol4, the petitioner was reinstated' and the punishment of dismissal was modified to that of reduction to a lower stage in time_scale ofpay (RTSp) by five stages for five years with effect on future increments and pension. Aggrieved by the magnitude of punishment, the petitioner filed an appear before the 2nd respondent-Deputy Inspector Generar of police, and the 2nd respondent, by Order dated 30.10.2015 modified/reduced the punishment to that of "RTSP by two stages for two years with effect on fi-rture increments and pension". Still felt aggrieved, trre petitioner fired a revision petition before the 3'd respondent-Inspector General of police, however, the revision petition was dismissed by the 3d respondent by Order dated 09.03.2016. Aggrieved by the same,, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 2. Heard Mr. C. Raja Sekhar Reddy, leamed counsel for the petitioner; and leamed Gov.emment pleader for Home. perused the record. i r 4 wp-4177 4,101'7 NBK, J 4th respondent_Superintendent not in dispute that pursuant to the Order dated 02'08'2014 passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner was reinstated' With regard to the punishment' the of police imposed the punishment of RrsP with fiie stages for Jive years with effect on future increments and pension;and the punishment was further reduced in appeal before the 2nd respondent-DlG, to that of RISP by ttvo stages for'tvvo years with e/fect on future increments and Pension' 6. At this juncture, it may be noted that the case has been adjudicated by the Tribunal on merits, and directed the reinstatement of the petitioner' There is no dispute with regard to the implementation of the orders of the Tribunal. It is to be noted that the punishment of RISP with five stages for five years with elJect on future increments and pension was fuither reduced to Rrsp with two stages for two years with effect on future increments and pension' on humanitarian grounds; and hence the grievance of dismissal of revision petitioln is therefore an unfounded grievance, as prima Jttciethere is compliance of the orders of Tribunal'

7. Having judgments rel submissions and also the considered the resPecttve ied on by the leamed counsel for the petitioner' this Court any grounds to interfere with the impugned Order dated does not find 09.03.2016 passed by the 3'd respondent' 8. AccordinglY, the writ Petltlon Miscellaneous Petitions Pending, if any, shall stand closed' 1S dismissed. No costs' I To, 1 2 J BM LS //TRUE COPY// SD/.M. OSMAN ALIBAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (\ SECfION OFFICER One CC to SRl. C. RAJA SEKHAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR HOME ,High Court forthe State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies ,,, -- .-.--.-- -. --, **=..- j+_ '- *.1..i -' ;11'.3r':7rrr*i&I i HIGH COURT ( DATED:17l0Gt2O2S I '::,--.. ., , ., ..:\.'- 'c9, a\ 22 AUE M !,1 _e tl ORDER WP.No.41t74 ot 2017 * o :ir- C i ii:\ .t I I I I I I { I , I I I I DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,/b 14 zz,/v