B Sadanandam S/o.Uooaraiah v. liable to be set aside

Order

The case of petitioncr is that he u'zrs appointed :rs Police Constable on 31.10.1995. While serving. he \\ras implicated in lour criminal cases. namely Crime No. 111 of t999 of PS Hasanparthy under Section 392 IPC and Section 25(L a) ol Arms Act, Crimc No. llO of 1997 of PS Matw-ada, Crimc No 96 of 1995 o[ I)S Kazipel and Crime No. 76 of 1997 of PS Man'rnr.ror. Without troiiling any cnquiry, the 2"d Rcspondcnt clismisscd him lrom scrvice by' proceedings dated 19.O4.2000- It is statecl, Petirioncr r,r'as acquilted in a1l the cases on merils- A'ftcr lris acquitlal, Pctitioner submitted a representation to the 2"d Itespondent secking reinstatement- As nc action u'as taketr, hc zrpproacired ihe A.P. Administrative 'I\-ibunal in O.A. Nd. 64'18 of' 2O09. By ordcr daled O7.O2.'2O12, the Tribunal set aside thr: dismissal order clated 19.O4.2OOO holding 1t to be ex pan'te and rvitl-iout cogcnt rcasons for dispensing with enquiry and clirectcd respondents to reinstate Petitioner u'ith ali cotlseqtlcntial benclils exccpt back rvages f rom ti-rt: dare of dismissal till filing of the O.A., rvhile rescrving lrberty to initiate fresh disciplinan' action - \ t1 \ I, t. ) 1 l. Whcn the order was not implemented, petitioner filed Contempt Application No. 926 ol 2013 in ().A. No. 6448 of 20O9. After sen,icc of summons, the 2"d Reslt:ltdent issued .reinstatement ordcr uide D.O. No. 7l ol 2Ol4 datr d 16.01.2O14, and accordingl_v, Pctrtioner rejoined duty on 19.O1.2O14. Hourever, wi thin t hre e u,eeks, he was again placed under suspension b1' D.O. No. 22O l2014lC.No.2O lpRl 1999-t4 dated i0.02.2014, on the ground that his ccnlinLrarion in servicc u,as likel-v to influcnce contemplatecl clep:rrtmental procecdings. Pctitioncr challcnged thc suspension in O.A. No. 3738 ol 20 14. Thc 'lribunal by order dated 17 .06.2014, suspended the suspension order dated 10.02.201.1 and directeci reinstalemen[, but the respondents did not reinsr-:rte him.

1.2. Subsequentlv, an Article of Chargr. ,was serwed alleging thai Petitioner had earlier been clrsmissed lor involvement in Crime Nos. I 11 of 1999, 140 of 1()(17. 96 ol 1995 and 76 of 1997 , and that his continuation in serr rce was likely to prejuclice departmcntal proceedings, thereby .; oJating ApCS I, (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Hc submitted Writtcn Slatcment of Defence on 1 0.O7.2014. Enquiry Officer concluctccl <:nqr_riry and subrnitted report on 20.lO.2Ol4. The 2"a Responc en I called for furlher r:xplanation bv memo dated 04.1O.20 I 1 for rvhich, Peti*foncr suirmittecl a detailecl explanarion on O1.ll.2Ot4. /. Without considering the defence or acquittal judgments, the 2nd Respcrndent again dismissed him from service uide order dated

12.ll .2O14. Aggrieved thereby, Pctitioner prelcrred a statutory Appcal on 19. 1 1.20 14 before the DIG of Policc, Warangal Rangc whlch vvas rejected on 06.O2.2O15; lhereafter, Revision Petition u,hich u,as also rejected b-y order dated 06.08.2015 holding that recovcry o[ gold chain, scootcr (AP 36C 1876) ancl knife in Crimc No. I I I ol 1999 casts stigma on his character, ignoring his acquittzrl in C.C- No. 1O96 of 1999 by judgment datcd

37.O7.2002. I .3. According Lo Petitioner, oncc acquitled on mcrits in all criminal cases, departmental procecdings on the same charges are unsustainable. A delinquent cannoL be punished departmentally whcn acquitted in criminal trial ont merits and on identical charges. The impugned dismissal order dated .

12.11.2014,. appeal rejection dated 06.02.2O15 and revision rejection dated 06.08.2015 are contreuJ to the binding precedents and arc illegal and arbitrary. It is further contended that Petitioner had already undergone extreme hardship, having been kept out of service for 14 years between 19.04.2000 and

16.Ol.2O14, despite his acquittal. Respondents, instead of I cqmplying ',vith Tribunal halassmer-,t thror-tgl-r suspension and lresh dismissal on lhe again sublected him to orders, I I I .1 same grolrnds, \\'hich amounts to dou bk: jeopardy, disproportiona t e punishment and violation ot'Artr::lr:s L4 and 21 \ of the ConstituLion of lndia. .2. l'he case of the 2"d respondcnt - Strl,erinlende t-rt ol Police, based on the counter-affidavi t, is that l)r'trtioncr, u.hile working as Police Constable, u'as dismisscd ll'unr scn-ice on account of his involvement in multiple criminal cascs, duly invoking Rr-rle 25 of the APCS (CC&A) Rules, I (l!l 1 read u,ith Article 31 1 of the Clonstitution ol India, ulde pr,-,cet:dings dated

19.O4.2000. It is the czrse of Respondents that u hile Pelitioner rvas working as glrnman to TDP leader Che lla Clrc nnakeshava Reddy, he associated u'ith anli-social elcme nts n nc1 engaged in extortion of money from thc pubtic at gunpoint. On 26.O7 .1999 at abolrt 4.3O p.n-r., Petitioner, along u.ith assc{-- ales Janaptla Muthyalu zrnd Hari (since deceased) , in terc,:yrtr:d an auto bearing No. AP 36U 1862 near Hasanparthy, tfrreatcned the passengers being P.Siclhar and Saibaba, u'it}-r a,1.9 mm pistol and knives, and robbed Rs. 6,5OO/- and a golcl chzrin w,<:ighing 172 tolurs. This incident was registered as Crime No.l 11 of 1999 under Section 392 IPC and Section 25(1)(a)(b) ol Arms r\ct, PS Hasanparthy. Petitioner was arrested on 26.08.1,999 :Lnd remanded to judicial custodl'. ( 5

2.1 . During interrogatiot-t, PeLiLioner also conlessed to involvemcnt in oEher heinous oflences: (i) murder of one Sammaial-r in Augusl, 1995 (Cr'No 96l 1'995. PS Kazipet, undcr Section 3O2 IPC), (ii) robbery of Rs' 6,OO0i - at Szrnai Bar in 1997 (Cr'No. l4Ol 1997, PS Matwada, under Section 397 IPC and Arms Act), and (iii) murder of ARHC 816 B. Shivaiah in 7997 at Mamnoor Aerodrome by burnir-rg him u,hilc he u'zrs undcr intoxication and sn:rtched his 9 mm service pistol and latcr on, he sent the said scrvicc pistol in a parcel to DisLrict Police Head Quarlers rvhich was blasted by bomb clisposal squad on suspicion the parcel contained explosion (Cr.No.76/ 1997, PS Mamnoor, under Sections 3O2,2Ol IPC). It is con[ended that, being a member of a drsciplined Force, Petitioner had turned into a Iawbreaker, creating fear and panic among thc pbblic and even among i,l.'itnesscs, nlanl' ul rvhom n ere unrvilling to depose.

ARHC 816 B. Shivaiah of Warangal n'as 2.2. Elunman to ZWC, He was missing from 79-ll-1997 ' Smt. B.Laxmi w/o Shivaiah hled complaint in Madikonda PS which was referred as UN lor *'ant of clues uide Cr'No 76 of

7997. LaLer on, petilioner r,'as arrested in robbery cases, he confr: ssed to have committed murder of ARFIC 816 B' 'I 6 -- --l I Y. v Shivaiah and burnt him at Mamnoor Aerorlrome. ln this case, exce pt stilt.rmcnL of his conlession, nrt other cvidcncc w,as collected by thc prosccution agencJ. Nl,tr-rnoor pS to bring horne the guilt of petitioner in the Ctortr-t ol lau,. In thosc circumstances, the 2nd respondent Srrlrcrintendent of Police, Warangal District, invoked Article It I t i2)(b) of the Constitution of India and dismissed petitioncr l-rom servrce in the interest of maintaining discipline, ulde procecclings dated

19.04.2000, which rvas acknowledgecl b.r, petitir,n,rr.

2.3. Respondents point out that afrr:r lapse of tu.o vears, Petitioner sought to challenge the disrnissal belatedll. through M.A. No. 3276 ot 2OO3 in O.A. SR No.I 1,866 ot 2003 before thc A.P. Aclministrative Tribunal. Lalcr. he liled O.A. No. 6448 rtf 2OO9 i,r,herein by order datccl 0!) 0!.20 12, thc Tribunal sct aside the dismissal order on tecfir.ical grounds, clirected reinstatement of pC 2795 s iLh r:or.t scquential bcnelits (cxclut{ing bac:k wages) and grante(l lilrertr to the deparrmenl to initiate lresh disciplinary. proccedings. Pursuant thereto, as per instructions of thc Dit-t:cror Cieneral of Police in Mcmo clated i9.Ol .2O14, t]ne Tribuni, Is order,"vas implcmented by rcinstating petitione r but sit rnrltancously placing him under suspension ou,ing to the grar,,t1. of charges uide D.O. No.22O/2014 d.ated 1O.O2.2O14. Thcrr:aftcr. a I 1 departmental charge memo was issued in C No.201/ PR- A5/1999-2014 datecl 03.O7.201,4 dulv :rcknorvledged bv the Petitioner on 08.07.2O14 ancl he submitted his written defence on 10.O7.2014. An Enquiry Officer (Addl. S.P., Warangal Rural) conducted enquirf in Lcrms of Rule 2O oi the APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991, affording reasonable opportunity to Petitioner arld submitted report daLed2O.7O.2O14, holding Lhe charge s proved. Aftcr considering Petitioner's further representaLion dzrted Ol .11,.2014, the disciplinary authorit), lmposed the penalty o[ dismissal from service on 1 2. I | .2O 14 , treating suspen sion period from 1O.O2.2AM as "Not on Duty." The order v",as served on Petitioner on 13.1 l.2Ol4.

2.4. The statutory Appeal preferred b\r.Petitioncr was rejected hy the DIG, Warangal Range, uide C.No.80/APP/2014 (R.O.No.1Oa/2015) dated 06.O2.2015. His revision to [he lrrspector General of Police, North Zonc, Hyderabad, reiccted L.Dis.No.1O8/A3/PR/201s (R.O.No.r49l2O1s) dated

06.08.2O15. Thus, according to RespondenLs, dismissal orders were passed strictlf in accordance ra.ith law, after aflording duc opportunity ancl in thc interest of discipline in the police Force. Petitioner, r.r'ho stoocl involved in hcinous t: I t 'I 8 crimes ol murder and armed robbcry, is unltr 1r) coltLinuc in SC]TVICE

3. l)etitioncr lilecl repty stating that ,.lre disciplinary :ruthoritv, by order dated 12,ll.2O14, impost.cl dismissal b1. refcrring to a non-existent charge memo dat:d 16.04.2014 and relving on "Minutes of Additional Su1t,:nntenclent ol Police dated 21.70.2OI4," ignoring the actual cnqllr^ reporr and acquittals. This shows non applicatiorr oI mincl and violertion of APCS (CC&A) Rules. The appellate :urcl rr:r,isional authorities also mechanically rejected his r\ppcal anci Rcvision on 06.02.2O j.5 ancl 06.0g.2015. The ,rnrir(: process is arbitrary, contrary to lau,, and unsustainal;[e. According to pctitiont:r, he born on O2.03.1969 and slill hls srx _vr:ars of scrvice left ancl is c,trtred to reinstatcment u,i.h.continuitv, scniority, and all consequential benefits. 1. Heard Sri M.R Tagore, learned counscl lor petitioncr as well as Smt. (iovernment pleader on A. Satya Sree, le:rrrrcrl Assist:tnt behalf of learnecl (iove rnment Plcader for Sen ices (Home) and perused the re,:.{ )r( l. 5. For adjudicating this Writ petition, it is necessary to considcr Rule 25 of the 1991 Rules rcad with l.rticle 311 ol thc Constitution of India u,hich is extracted hct:rrr: cler.: Y Y t. 9 Special procedure in certain cases: " 25. Notlvithstanding anithing contained in rulc 20 [o rule 24 (1) where any penaltv is imposecl on a go\trnment sen'ant on the ground of conduct $'hich has led to his conviction on a criminal clrarge, (ri) where the disciplinary authorit\. is satislle.l lbr rcasolls to be recorded by it in $,riting that it is not rcasonabll practicablc Lo hold an rnquiry in the manner provided in these rules, or (iii) where the Governor rs satisfied that in lhc interest o[ the security of the Statc, it is not expedicnl to holtl anv inrluirv in the manncr provided in these rules, The disciptinary authoritl mal considcr the circumstances of the case and make such orders therc on as it (l(,'clns [il: First Proviso delel ed (G.O.Rt.No. 642l.GA (Ser.C) Dcpt.. clt. 2!:t 12 1993) Provided that the Commission shall bc consultcd, u hert-- such consultation necessar], before anl orders are m:rdc in an\ (.lse ttlr(it'r this rule. "Provided further that no such consultatiou \"'itll [he Commission is necessary before any orders are made under clause (i) of this rule". (G.O.Ms.No.24O, G.A. (Scr.C) Dept., dt: 14.8.2003)" Article 31 1 of the Constitution of India states that: ''311- Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons emplo-vcd I ir.r civil capaci{ies under the Union or a State (1)No person rvho is a member o[ a civii senice o[ thc tJnion ot an al Indra service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a Slate shall be dismissed or rcmoved bl' a authoritl subordinate to that by which he ivas appointcd. (2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissccl or rr:rnovcd or reduced in rank except after an inquir,- in rvhich lre has bccn informed of the charges against hi m and given a rcasonable opportunit-Y of being heard in respect of those charges; Provided that \\'here it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him an1'such penaltv, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the c\-idence aclcluced during such inquiry anct it shall not be necessar-t' to give such pcrson an\ I 1 l0 I opporttLnih of malong representation on the penalt-\' prr'irose(l f'roviderl liu thcr thal tiris clalise shall not applv {a)!\ hcr.' .r person rs dismissed or removed or redllr'e (l irl rank on thc qroLrnd of conduct rvhich has led to his convicticrr rlrr ar crinrinal ciu rgc. or (bl\\ h(:re the attthority empowered to dismiss or r(-'rrrr)\ (' a L)erson or to redu(:e hrn-r in rank is satisfied that lor some reason. io b( recorde(l l)\. tlrat authorit-\ in rvriting, it is not rcasonably prarctictrlrle lo hold such rnrluirr. or (c)',\ hcrc Lhc I'resident or the Governor, as thc cl sc mar tre, is satisfied thar in [he interest of the securitv of the -qla'e, i1 is not ( \lledient to lrold such inquiry. (3lli-. irr respecl oI ar-r1 suc]r person as aforesaid, it itt:strt.,n ariscs \\ hellrc)- it- is i-easonablv practicable to hold such inquirv lts is rel-errcd to in clausc (2). lhe decision thereon of the authoritl' empo\\:irird to dismrss or rcrnole sLrclI pcrson or to reduce him in rank shall b('lirllll.' (). 'i'hc rccord placed before this Crrt.trt rcveals a _ disquieting state of affairs. Petitioner, \r'ho had ( n-tercd ser\'ice irs:r -\'otrng ('onstablc chargecl with thc solemn 1.sl)onsibilit! of upholding jnu' and safeguarding rights of c llizerls, found hrnrsclf, N'itllin a brief span of service, facing a, icries of gravc crjnrinal cascs jnvolving allegations of robberr, ('xtortion, and cr en Lnurder. 'lhough he u'as ultimately acqutltrcl in thc said criminiil pror:eedings, such acquittals were not thc resltlt of a posrtivc linding of innocence but arose primaril]' ort account of failure ol prosecution to secure crediblc u iLnesses to sl.lbstantizrte rhe charges. The office of a police t:rtnstable is not merelv :r source of livelihood; it is a public trust. A police oflicer t. I. t. is [he arm of the law, symbol of disciphne ar-rd the first line of defence for an ordinary citizen. A uniform meant to rcassure cltlzens cannot be permifted to conccal thosc s,ho brin6i clisrepute to it. ,l

7. The plca of Petitioner that acqlrittal in criminarl CourLs should automatically translate into immunitl.- from departmental action is wholly untenable. It is rvell settled that acquittal does not prevcnt disciplintrn' authoritlcs from assessing the fitness of a person to colttinrrc in sen,icc, particularly in a disciplined force. This Coun also takes note o[ the fact that the Tribunal in O.A. No.6448 ot 2L)09, w,hile sctting asidc the earLer dismissal, expressly reserwed liberty to thc authorities to initiate fresh proceedings. Acting upon sucl-r liberty, a departmental enquiry w,as undertaken, chargcs u.ere hcld proved, and penalty of dismissal was imposcd. Thc order of discipiinary. authority as well as Lhose oI appellatc and revisional authorities demonstrate due considcration and a consistent view that Petitioner's continuance jn sen icc u'oulcl be w,holly incompatible with the srandarcls of integrirv ancl discipline demanded of members of the police forcc.

8. This Court cannot ignore the larger canvas. The qucstion is not merely of one individual's cmployment but of the credibili$ of the entire police Forc.e. Reinstating into sen.ice a person repc.llcdl.r iound in proximity to crimina I irct.s, even if zrcqrrittccl in r.rinrin:rl court_s, r,r,ould sencl a dangt,.-ous mcssagc, thal a r.i n ilorn.,. c:ur shicld misconduct and that ltublic trust ts expendzLltlt:. Th<: Constitution docs not permit sul:h an crosion t. of r.nlues. L A police oflicer must be above suspicicn. a source ol reassrir.t rtce lo I hc vulncrablc. pctitioner, b-y his condtrct, has irrepar:rl;1_r' brcachcd that standard. To direcl rL,t r) s tal,ement in srrch cirt'Lrrnsr:rrtr.cs u.o.[d be a beLrayal of the v,:r' crlize,s thc policc: arc s\\orn to protcct.

10. F-or ail these reasons, this Courl is ol thc firm opinion t h;rL riisrnissal of petitioner from service. rvns uor onllr lau'iul but rlcccss.lrr to preserve discipline, moralrr iincl honour of thc polir--e I,irrr.c. 'l'l're Writ petiLion is devoid of nt,.ritt.. I I . 'l'lre Writ pel ition is therefore, dismisst,rl . No costs. Consequeutly, the miscellaneous Ap:rlicattons, if l'). an.r' s1'rall stil n(1 ('losed. //TRUE COPY// I;D/-A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR 6,_ SECTION OFFICER Y. To 1 9nu 99 to SRt M R TAGORE, Advocate tOpUCl 2 one cc to sRt M V RArun nno iSFllEb\ir"nijrvrer,n pLEADER) loPUCl Two CD Copies 3 SA BS W Advocate 1 .a HIGH COURT DATED:0310912025 I ,'' - .,:1i,.' ,j.v" 2t $:P ?ffi 'ti 'i, " .--.r' c, *i._-: / -: ,/ ORDER WP.No.44905 of 2017 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. t^ \ ( \ q tq,