K. Bhanu Prakash v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of the Constilution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue to a writ, order or direction and more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that the Respondents not considering the Petitioner for Promotion to the post of Inspector of Police (civil) without reference to the PR No.10/2015 No . L and O / 86/ 15012013 dated 1 1.02.2015 and its consequential Oral Enquiry is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently declare the petitioner is eligible for the post of lnspector of Police (Civil). lA NO: 1 OF 2017 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 direct the Respondents to consider the petitioner for the post of lnspector Of Police (Civil) without reference of the PR No.10/2015 No . L and O I 861 15012013 dated

11.O2.2015 pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Between:

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

2. The Director General of Police, Hyderabad, Telangana State. 3. The lnspector General of Police, Hyderabad Range, Hyderabad, Telangana State AND K. Bhanu Prakash, Occ. Sub lnspector of Police, Police Control room, Soutth Zone, Hyderbad City. ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS ..RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 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 vacate the interim orders dated 28t121201 7 and dismiss the writ petition as it is devoid of merits. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI DEEPAK MISRA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI M.V. RAMA RAO (sPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER)) The Court made the following: ORDER .--""q*r&'-, a1 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.44697 ot 2OL7 \ ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief : t "to issue a writ, order or direction and more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the respondents not considering the petitioner for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police (Civil) without reference to the PR No.10/2015 No. L&O/861 50/2013 dated I 1.02.201 5 and its consequential Oral Enquiry is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently declare the petitioner is eligible for the post of Inspector of Police (Civil) and to pass such other order or orders".

2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue is squarely covered by the order dated t9.12.2024 in writ petition No.16003 of 2OL9 passed by this Court.

3. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties, this writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the order dated L9.12.2O24 in writ petition No.16003 of 2019. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if a, any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ANT REGISTRAR AS ECTION OFFICER ) To, Telangana, Hyderabad '1 . The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariji, The State of 2. The Director General of Police, Hyderabad, Telangana State. 3. The lnspector General of Police, Hyderabad Range, Hyderabad, Telangana 4. One CC to Sri Deepak Misra, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri [\/.V. Rama Rao (SPL. Gov]ernmeht Pleader)) tOpUCl 6. Two CD Copies State TJ GJP (Along with the Copy of Order dated 19.12.2024 ln W.P.No.16003 OF 2019) % -=-&a {...!:'3 .:.4 . (', HIGH COURT DATED:2710212025 ORDER WP.No.44697 of 2017 t I 1t{ E Sizl ,( of. (; i) (_) I 1t ,,r_) 2 3 AUB 2[25 * o [.Sn..,16 -, r. !_r 6 ',t \\ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS o\ e{ THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI{A WRIT PETITION No.16OO3 of 2019 ORDER: This writ petition is hled seeking the following relief:- "to issue a ui| order or direction more partictLlarly one in the nature of u-trit of Mandamus declaing the action of the respondent ivos.l to 3 in continuing the disciplinary proceedings agdinst the Petitioner uide No.L and O/ 86/ 1 10/ 2015 and the consequent issuance of Memo Vide Memo No.L and O/86/ 110/2O15-19 dated O2.O3.2O19 as arbitrary, illegal and in uiolation of Articles 14 16 ond Article 311 of Constitution of India and consequentlA set aside the same."

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was recruited in 1998 as Sub Inspector of Police, and at the time of filing the writ petition, he was working as such at Charminar Police Station, attached to South Zone Police Control. On 05.09.2014, he filed a complaint with KPHB Police Station regarding brutal murder of his wife, namely,K.Sowjanya. After verifying the scene of the offence and conducting investigation, FIR No.9OO of 2014 was registered, and petitioner was made accused on the ground that he had confessed to the crime. A charge sheet was filed under Sections 302 and 2Ol of lPC, uideSC No. 29 of 2015, on the file of the XV Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at Miyapur. On 03.04.20 17, the trial Court acquitted petitioner for the charges under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC, concluding that none of the other witnesses examined and supported the evidence of PW-11/I.O. No appeal was preferred by the State Further case of the petitioner is that he brought the order of acquittal to the notice of the respondent-authority. However, the respondent-authority did not consider it and instead conducted a superfluous inquiry. Without considering the petitioner's explanation, the respondent-authorities concluded that the charges were proven based on the enquiry report, which relied on the alleged confession and media reports. Hence the present writ petition.

3. At the hearing, Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Deepak Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner on recordwould submit that the subject matter is squarely covered by the order dated 04.12.2023 passed by the Hon"ble Supreme Court in Ram Lal as State of Rajasthan and others r wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at para Nos.29,3O and 34, which read as under: "29. We are satisfied that the findings of the Appellate Judge in the ciminal case clearly indicate that the charge against the appellant uas not just "not proued"-in fact the charge euen stood "disproued" by the \12024) l SCC 175 3 uery prosecution euidence. As held by this Court, a fact is said to be "disproued"wheru , after consideing the matters before it, the court either belieues that it does not exist or considers its non-eisterlce so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not eist. A fact is said to be "not proued" tuhen it is neither 'proued" nor "disproued"(see Vijagee Singh u.State of U.P. -(1990) 3 SCC 190:1990 SCC (Cd37B.

30. We are additionallg satisfied that in the teeth of the finding of theAppellate Judge, the disciplinary proceedings and the orders passed thereon cannot be allouted to stand. The charges tuere not just similar but identical and the euidence, taitnesses and circumstances u)ere all the same. This is a case rahere in exercise of our discretion, u-te quash the orders of the disciplinary authoritg and the appellate authoitg as allowing them to stand uill be unius| unfair and oppressiue- This case is uery similar to the situation that arose in G.M. Tank(20O6) 5 SCC 446. 34.Accordingly, ule set aside the judgment of DB Special Appeal (Writ) No. 484 of 2011 dated 5-9-2018. We direct that the appellant shall be reinstated uith all consequential benefits including senioitg, notional promotions, fitment of salary and all other benefits. As fa, as back Luages are concerned, u)e are inclined to atuard the appellant 5O% of the back Luages. The directions be complied uith ttlithin a peiod of four ueeks from todag.".

4. Learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondents unopposed the said submission. 4

5. In terms of the above said order, this Writ Petition is allowed, and the respondent-authority shall reinstate petitioner with all consequential benefits including seniority, notional promotions, fitment of salary, all other benefits and 50% of the back wages. The directions be complied with within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Miscellaneousapplications, pending if any, shall stand closed Dated 19.12.2024 NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J