The High Court · 2025

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 operation of the impugned Charge Memo in Rc.No.2TtB2lMajor/Cyb12017, dated 03-11-2017 issued by the 1st respondent pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B.ASHOK Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER &;& // a HON'BLE SRJ WSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 40,0,42 0F 2017 o RDER: Petitioner challenges the Charge Memo dated 03-ll-2017 on the ground that article of charge framed against her was based on the same set of facts which is subject matter of O.A.No.4957 of 2Ol5' The said O'A was allowed by the A'P' Administrative Tribunal ' Hyderabad on O4-l2-2O15' 2 Commtssroner The case of Petitioner - Women Police Constable is of Police issued that the 1sr respondent proceedings dated 07-08-20 15 terminating her services with immediate effect on the ground of unsatisfactory conduct' for allegedly suppressing her involveme nt in criminal cases' According to her, the issue arose from a civil dispute between herhusbandandhisbrothersregardingancestralproperty'The InspectorofPoli.e,P.S.shahinayathgunj,HyderabadSubmitted the report dated 27-lI-2O14' which details that her husband's brother hled a complaint against petitioner and her husband' Petitionei asserts that though she did not mention these cases in her Attestation Form and left certain sections blank' from the report dated 27 'll -2014 ' it is clear that the department was aware that there were no ongoing cases against her at the time 2 of her Applicrr:ion. Furthermore, petitioner claims that she was acquitted in ().C. No. 32O of 2O11,, by order dared 22.08 2012 on the fi1e of 1.he XXII Special Magistrate, Hvderaba,l where prosecution f;riled to prove the charge under Section ii23 read with Section tl+ IPC. She emphasizes that departmenL .nas well aware of her antecedents before her appointment a s police Constable on IO l2-2O14, therefore, accusation of suppression of facts is unfounded. Petitioner further submits tha the 1"t respondent issued show-cause notice dated 04_O7_2C15 for which, explanation was submitted on 11 07 2O15 clarifling that all the cases rvere closed without any adverse findings. Despite this, the 1 st re spondent issued termination proc,:edings. Petitioner is stated to have appealed to the 2"d respon:lent on l8-08,2015, rr:rluesting to set aside the termination orcler. She claims that she did not deliberately conceal her involve;nent in criminal cases She did not answer ',NOi in the Aftestaticn Form because, at thr: time, there was no ongoing or seriorLs case against her. Petitioner thereafter, filed O.A.No.4957 of 2075 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal wherein respc,ndents filed counter affidavit along with the report from th< Joint Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Hyderabad, conlirming that departmer t was aware of petitioner,s antecedents prior to her appointme nt. The Tribunal allor,r,ed the sard O A_ on J 'j 04-12-2015, holding that petitioner was victim of a petty family dispute and not involved in any serious criminal activity, therefore, directed her reinstatement into service within two weeks with prospective monetary and service benefits. However, respondents hled Writ Petition No. 159 14 of 2016 which was dismissed at the admission stage on 02-06-20 16. Petitioner then liled C.A.No.378 of 2016 in O.A.No.4957 of 2015, but before the matter could be resolved, the Tribunal was abolished, leading her to file Writ Petition No.101 ll of 2OL7 to implement the Tribunal's orde rs. Respondents hled S. L. P. (C) Dairy No. 166O5 of 2017, whrch was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on O7-O7-2O17. Consequently, on 29 O9-2O17, the lst respondent issued the order reinstating petitioner and she accordingly, joined duty on 07-lO-2O17 - While so, on 03- 1 l-2O17 , the 1"t respondent issued the impugned charge memo, based on the same set of facts which were already addressed in the previous proceedings and in the Tribunal's order. She emphasizes that the issue of her alleged suppression of facts has already been settled by the courts and the Tribunal had allowed the O.A. on merits. Therefore, initiation of further proceedings on the same facts is an abuse of power and constitutes victimization. She also points 4 l out that thouglL she was reinstated into service on 07 lD-2O 77 , her probation has not been declared, and her salarl. nas not been paid.

3. He'ard learned counsel for petitioner who r,:lies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Comrnissioner of Police u. Sandeep Kumarl to contend that non-mentioning of involvement in criminal cases in the Attestation Forr does not disqualify zr candidate automatically.

4. This Court by order dated 03.01.2018, suspertded the impugned r:harge memo.

5. Lea:-ned Government Pleader for Home, ba sed on the counter-affjdavit filed by the 1"t respondent, subm jts that though petitionr:r was reinstated pursuant to the order in SLp., disciplinary pror:eedings, which are being carried out un(ler the TSCS (Classification, Control. and Appeal) Rules, are valid, The proceedings wcre initiated due to her miscondt rct in suppressing material facts regarding her involvement ; n four criminal cases r.,n'hen she joined the police service. Suppr.ss5len of facts is con sidered a violation of the rules and a r;erious misconduct in tJre disciplined force of the police departn.:ent. It is argued lhat petitioner's misconduct, in contraven tion of the ' 1zo I t.y .t scx oo+ W o 5 TSCS Conduct Rules, cannot be overlooked. The standard of proof required in departmental proceedings is based on it is argued that preponderance of probabilities. Hence, _ petitioner's arguments against the disciplinary proceedings are' baseless and requests the Court to vacate the interim order dated O3.01.2018 and dismiss the Writ Petition, as the matter lacks ment From the pleadings and arguments put forward by

6. the respective counsei, it is evident that the primary contention of petitioner is that charge memo is based on the same set of facts that have already been adjudicated by the Tribunal, the High Court, and the Supreme Court. The Tribunal in O.A'No' 4957 of 2015 observed that respondents in their counter submitted that there was nothing adverse against the applicant when they conducted verihcation of.antecedents; a careful perusal of the material papers show that the applicant was a victim of petty family feuds and was afraid of mentioning that case in the attestation form and there are no allegations of moral turpitude against her' No evidence has been produced to contradict this finding. In Writ Petition No. 15914 of 2016 fied by the Commissioner of Police against the order in the Tribunal, the Division Bench of this Court observed that all the criminal 6 o cases were rcgrstered in connection with a civil disputc between the famill' me,rnbers of the 1"r respondent therein and that not only that thev ',r.cre closed but also no moral turpitucle c,f the 1.r .respondent r.vius involved in these cases, hence, they did not find any reason to i'rterfere with the finding of the Tribunal tlrat non- disclosure ab, r.rt these cases which ended by the tim, r of her making application for employment, could not have ber n made a grouncl for te rmination of her employment. Agai est the Division Bench order dated 02.06.2016, the Commtss oner of Police filed SLp which was dismissed. The allegatior rs have already been r:onclusively settled by judicial and quasi judicial bodies. Hence restarting the same procedure by initiatir rg fresh proceedings or r identical allegations, in the considered opinion of this Court. ,tonsLitutes an abuse of administrative porver and violates the pr,rrciple of finality in litigation. Further, th,r report dated 27-Il-2C14 submitted by the Inspector of polir:e, p.S. Shahinayathgr.urj, clearly establishes that the departmr nt had knowledge of u,:titioner's antecedents before her appoir rtment. Hence, the alr,lusation of suppression appears unfc,unded. Respondents have also not provided any new grounds ju stifying the issuancc o1 Charge Memo. In view of the same, this ( ourt is of the opinion t h.at Writ petition deserves to be allowed. 7 o The Writ Petition is therefore, allowed and the T. Charge Memo dated O3-ll -2017 is set aside Respondents are directed to ensure that petitioner is granted. all service benefits, includtng salary, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a' copy of this order' No costs'

8. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed' That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above' Witness THE HoN'BLE THE ACTING-C!!l-E-lJq!.T-lgE SUJoY PAUL' on this ililG;i;il; rwewv sevetrH DAy oF MARCH rwo rHousAND AND rwENw FlvE //TRUE COPY// SD/.A. SRINIVASA REDDY S ISTANT REGI SECTION OFFICER To 1 2 J 4 5 6 PSK. BS ner of Police, CYberabad, Gachibowl neral of Police, Telangana State, Hyderabad. retary, Home Department, Secretariat yderabad. ana- 22 B.AS HOK, Advocate IOPUC] FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana, at buildi ngs, Hyderabad, The Commissio The Director Ge The PrinciPal Sec Govt. of Telang One CC to SRI Two CCs to GP Hvd erabad. [OUTI Two CD Co pres #r-' HIGH COURT DATED:2710312025 ORDER WP.No.40042 of 2017 ( q J o (.: 1 gE srrii g 1 0 |,,Pfl 2S25 * . l'- - ,6rf,, -\-.:: { .l ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS @,*v\# Cft Wie{x"