IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTYFIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 12322 OF 2021 Between: Narasimham, Aged about 52 years, Occ: Head Constable (1486), Rural Police Station, Vizianagaram Rural, Vizianagaram District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Home department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi Guntur District. 2. The Inspector General of Police (Personal) Coastal Zone, State of A P Visakhapatnam. 3. The Dy. Inspector General of Police, Visakhapatnam Range, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam District. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the impugned action of the respondents awarded the punishment of PPI for two (2) years Without Cumulative Effect on his future increments and pension and suspension period from 19.09.2013 to 01.04.2014 is treated as-Not on Duty vide proceedings D.O.No.05/2017/C.No.09/0E/PR/2015 dated 05.01.2017 issued by the 4*^ respondent and consequential rejection appeal vide proceedings C.No. Appeal/PR/2017(R.O.No.163/2017 dated 01.05.2017 by the 3 rd respondent, and rejection of revision vide proceedings D.Dis.No.225/T4/2018 dated 18.04.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent and rejection of mercy petition by the 1st respondent vide Memo.No.2890812/Ser.ll/A1/2019 dated 19.08^2020 though the charges were not proved by the enquiry officer and the same charge was acquitted vide C.C. No. 120 of 2014 dated 14.03.2016 as highly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to restore the increment and treat the above suspension as on duty with all consequential benefits. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to issue Interim Direction directing the respondents to restore the increment and treat the above suspension as on duty pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BONU RAMA SHANKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010213602021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] THURSDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 12322/2021 Between: ...PETITIONER M. Apparao, AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BONU RAMA SHANKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following Order: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief; t “ to issue a Writ, order or direction more particuiariy one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus deciare the impugned action of the respondents awarded the punishment of punishment of PPi for two 2 years Without Cumuiative Effect on his future increments and pension and suspension period from 19.09.2013 to 01.04.2014 is treated as Not on Duty vide proceedings D.O.NO.05/2017/C.NO.09/0E/PR/2015, dated 05.01.2017 issued by the 4"’ respondent and consequentiai rejection T 2 appeal vide proceedings C.No. Appeal/PR/2017 (R.O.No.163/2017 dated 01.05.2017) by the f'' respondent and rejection of revision vide proceedings D.Dis.No.225/T4/2018, dated 18.04.2019 issued by the 2P^ respondent and rejection of mercy petition by the 1 respondent vide Memo.No.2890812/Ser.ll/A1/2019, dated 19.08.2020 though the charges were not proved by the enquir^ officer and the same charge was acquitted vide C.C.No.120 of 2014, dated 14.03.2016 as highly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to restore the increment and treat the above suspension as on duty with ail consequential benefits ” St 2. Heard Mr.B.Rama Shankar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I, for the respondents. 3. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court in Writ Petition No.15482 of 2021, dated 12,09.2024. I On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader vehemently opposed for grant of any relief in the present writ petition and submits that basing on the crime vide Cr.No.109 of 2013 under Section 292 IPC of Jami 4. PS from the store room stating that he has taken away CPU and he admitted guilt before the SI of Police, Jami PS and figured as an accused in Cr.No.121 of 2013 under Section 380 read with 511 IPC of Jami PS. Basing on the report, the petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f. 19.09.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner was released from suspension w.e.f. 01.04.2014. After conducting the preliminary enquiry, the petitioner was issued with Minor 3 charge memo and awarded with the punishment of “Censure”. Thereafter, the petitioner was acknowledged the receipt of article of charge on 05.12.2015 and submitted his written statement of defence denying the allegations i levelled against the petitioner. After the enquiry of the Inquiry authority, the punishment of “Postponement of increment for two (2) years without cumulative effect on his future increments and pension” besides treating his suspension from 19.09.2013 to 01.04.2014 as “Not On Duty”. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader prays to dismiss the writ petition. On considering the submissions of both the learned counsels and upon 5. perusing the above said order of this Court, this Writ Petition is also disposed of, in terms of the Order in Writ Petition No. 15482 of 2021, dated 12.09.2024. The impugned proceedings vie D.O.No.05/2017/C.No.09/OE/PR/2015, dated 05.01.2017 issued by the 4'^ respondent and consequential rejection appeal vide proceedings C.No.Appeal/PR/2017 (R.O.No.163/2017 dated 01.05.2017) issued by the 3''^ respondent are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to restore the increment and treat the suspension period from 19.09.2013 to 01.04.2014 as on duty and grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner, within three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand 6. closed. 4 '9 7. Registry is directed to attach a copy of the Order in Writ Petition No. 15482 of 2021, dated 12.09.2024, to this Order. Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTON OFFICER To ^ a'p Sec?e'tariafvS='^’ °®P3rtment, State of Andhra M.p. secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi Guntur District. Pradesh State of A.P, 4. The Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. 5. One CC to Sri Bonu Rama Shankar Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Services I 7. Three C.D. Copies. High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Inctoied heShr® '‘^‘^'’•^2.09.2024 in W.P. No.15482 of 2021 Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:02/01/2025 ORDER AHDS^ 0^ 5 17 JAN 2025 WP.No.12322 of 2021 f ^ . Current Section DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS APHC010266172021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] THURSDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 15482 OF 2021 Between: K.A. Rehaman ...PETITIONER AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.TS N SUDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India “to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the impugned action of the respondents awarded the punishment of RTSP by three stages for two years with effect on future increments and pension and suspension period from 21.07.1995 to 12.04.1996 not treated as on duty vide proceedings C.No.258/PR/95/ DO.No.1512/2001 dated 13.12.2001 by the 3'^ respondent and consequential rejection of appeal vide proceedings C.No.173/Appl/2017/ROC No.445/2018 Nil.07.2018 by the 2"“' respondent, though the charges were not proved by the enquiry officer and the same charge was acquitted vide S.C.No.513 of 1996, dated 04.02.1998 as highly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to restore the increment and treat the suspension period from 21.07.1995 to 12.04.1996 as on duty with all consequential benefits and pass such other and further orders”. 2. Heard Mr. T.S.N.Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. P. Sudeepti, learned Assistant Government Pleader, Services-I for the respondents. 3. It is the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police in the year 2018. While he was working as Police Constable in Narasaraopet Rural Police Station, Guntur District a case has been registered against him vide Crime No. 36 of 1995, dated 17.06.1995 under Section 366-A, 376 of IPC in Phirangipuram Police Station and that the petitioner was kept under suspension from 21.07.1998. During pendency of criminal case, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 12.04.1999. On the basis of criminal case the 3'^'^ respondent issued Charge Memo dated 06.12.1995 and the petitioner has also submitted explanation. The disciplinary authority filed report after examining the witnesses and concluded that the charges were not proved against the petitioner. On the basis of criminal charge on the same allegation, the respondents issued Charge Memo dated 06.12.1995 and the petitioner has submitted detailed explanation. Without satisfaction of the explanation the respondents appointed the enquiry officer and decided to precede the departmental enquiry though criminal case is pending on the same charge, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. The case in S.C.No.513 of 1996 on the file of the Court of Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet is ended in acquittal. Without following procedure the 3 rd . respondent disciplinary authority disagree with the enquiry report and awarded the punishment of RTSP by three stages for two years with effect on future increments and pension and suspension period from 21.07.1995 to 12.04.1996 not treated as on duty vide proceedings dated 13.12.2001. Assailing the same, he preferred appeal before the 2'^'^ respondent, which was rejected dated NIL.07.2018 which is highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence the present writ petition came to be filed. 4. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contents urged in the writ affidavit and submitted that this matter is squarely covered by an order of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.16104 of 2013, dated 10.06.2013 and hence requested to pass similar order in this writ petition also. 5. Perused the record. 6. No doubt, it is well settled that though an acquittal is recorded in criminal proceedings, it is open for the disciplinary authority to enquire into the charges framed against the employee and at the same time, if the charges framed in both the criminal and disciplinary proceedings are one and the same, the evidence recorded is also same, in such circumstances, it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that no different view can be taken by the disciplinary authority other than the view taken in criminal proceedings. 7. In the instant case, on perusal of the enquiry report and the Judgement of the trial court in S.C.No.513 of 1996, dated 04.02.1988, would show that the charge framed against the petitioner are one and same in both the proceedings. 8. By taking into consideration of the finding recorded by the criminal court and relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “G.M.Tank v. State of Gujarath and Others’’^ the impugned order dated 13.12.2001 by the 3'^'^ respondent and consequential rejection of appeal by the 2 respondent is declaring as illegal and arbitrary and same is hereby set aside. nd 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, while directing the respondents to restore the increment of petitioner and treat the suspension period from 21.07.1995 to 12.04.1996 as on duty and grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner, within three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO Date: 12.09.2024 KK ^ (2006) 5 see 446