IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAV, THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY j TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION (AT) NO: 78 OF 2021 Between: K. Mohan Rao, S/o.Mangaiah, aged 54 yrs, Occ. Head Constable 713, Kasibugga P.S. Srikakulam District ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam District at Srikakulam. 2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Visakhapatnam Range Visakhapatnam 3. The Inspector General of Police, North Coastal Zone,. A.P,. Hyderabad 4. The Director General of Police, State of A.P. at Hyderabad. 5. The State of Andhra Pradesh, i Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 500022. rep by its Principal Secretary, Home ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to declare the action of the respondents herein in imposing major punishment of postponement of increment for may one year with cumulative effect by treating the suspension period as not on duty vide impugned D.O.No,438/2013 dated 29-05-2013 issued by the 1st respondent and all consequential rejection orders passed in Appeal by the 2nd respondent vide Proceedings C.No.131/Appeal/2013, dated 11-02-2014 and Rc.No,478/A1/IGP-NCZ/Revision/2014, dated 19.07.2014 and Memo No.3794/Ser.ll/A1/l5, dated 18-11-2015 (in respect of the applicant) by the Government as highly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the enquiry report and contrary to the CCA Rules and consequentially, this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 29-05-2013 and all consequential orders, dt.11-02-2014 declaring that the applicant herein is entitled for further promotions as SI (Civil) nationally on par with juniors with all consequential benefits. 19-07-2014 and 18-11-2015 by Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M R TAGORE Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATHl THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHl JAGADAM Writ Petition (AT) No.78 of 2021 Between; ... Petitioner K. Mohan Rao and The Superintendent of Police, Srikakulain District and others ... Respondents : Sri M.R.Tagore Counsel for the petitioner ; Sri R.S.Manidhar, Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I Counsel for the respondents This Court made the following: 2 JS,J W.P.(AT) No.78of202l ORDER: St This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the 1 respondent in imposing major punishment of postponement of increment for one year with cumulative effect by treating the suspension period as not on duty, vide proceedings C.No.09/Major-PR/2012, dated 29.05.2013, and the consequential orders dated 11.02.2014, dated 19.07.2014, and 18.11.2015 passed by respondent Nos.2, 3 & 5 respectively, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, to set aside the same. The petitioner belongs to ST community. He was initially appointed as Police Constable and is due for promotion as Sub- Inspector. The 1®‘ respondent, vide proceedings D.O.No.115/2012, dated 16.02.2012, has suspended the petitioner on the allegation that the petitioner and two others demanded money from Sri Polumuru 2. Ramarao, who is organizing cube game. The 1®‘ respondent has initiated disciplinary proceedings, based on the report submitted by the Inspector of Police on 13.02.2012, and framed single charge of demanding money. The petitioner has 3. submitted his explanation on 09.06.2012. On 30.08.2012, the petitioner On 23.03.2013, the Enquiry Officer was reinstated into service. submitted a report holding that the charge is not proved. Based on the preliminary report prepared by the Inspector of 4. Police, a Dissent Memo C.No.09/Major-PR/2012, dated 23.04.2013 3 JS,J W.P.(AT)No.78qf202I was issued by the 1®‘ respondent. The 1®* respondent, without considering the explanation, has issued the impugned proceeding C.No.09/Major-PR/2012, dated 29.05.2013, imposing the punishment of postponement of increment for one year with effect on future increments and pension, while treating the period from 24.02.2012 to 05.09.2012 as ‘Not on Duty’. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal to the 2'""' respondent on 22.06.2013, which was rejected vide proceeding C.No.131/Appeal/2013, dated 11.02.2014. Against which, the petitioner has preferred a revision before the 3'^ respondent, which was rejected vide proceeding Rc.No.478/A1/IGP- NCZ/Revision/2014, dated 19.07.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a mercy petition before the 5*^ respondent which was also rejected vide Memo No.3794/Ser.ll/A1/15, dated 18.11.2015. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. Heard, Sri E. Venkata Rao, learned counsel, representing Sri M.R.Tagore, learned counsel for the petitioner on record, and Sri R.S.Manidhar, Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that when the Enquiry Officer has held that the charge is not proved, the 1®* respondent, instead of dropping the charge, has issued dissent memo dated 23.04.2013 on the ground that the petitioner has managed the witnesses. The said dissent memo was issued based on the preliminary report submitted by the Inspector of Police on 13.02.2012 and thereby. 6. 4 JSJ W.P.fAT) No.78of202I % conducted regular enquiry which clearly shows that the respondent has gone beyond the scope of CCA Rules and imposed the major penalty. The appeal, revision and mercy petition filed by the petitioner before respondent Nos.2, 3 & 5 respectively are rejected. The learned counsel has relied on the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nirmala J. Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat', wherein it is held at paras 41 and 42 as under; Therefore, the question does arise as to whether it was permissible for either of them to take into consideration their statements recorded in the preliminary inquiry, which had been held behind the back of the appellant, and for which she had no opportunity to cross- examine either of them. ‘41. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Amalendu Ghosh Vs. North Eastern Railway, reported in AIR 1960 SC 992, held that the purpose of holding a preliminary inquiry in respect of a particular alleged misconduct is only for the purpose of finding a particular fact and prima facie, to know as to whether the alleged misconduct has been committed and on the basis of the findings recorded in preliminary inquiry, no order of punishment can be passed. It may be used only to take a view as to whether a regular disciplinary proceeding against the delinquent is required to be held." 42. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for 7. the respondents submits that the petitioner demanded money from Polumuru Ramarao and Gorle Thavudu and warned them that he will (2013) 4 see 301 5 JSJ W.P.(AT)No.78 0/2021 implicate them in criminal cases, if they do not pay money. The victims have approached the village elder Sri Bhaskara Rao who met the Sub- Divisional Police Officer, who in turn submitted a report against the petitioner. Based on the report submitted by the Inspector of Police, the petitioner was placed under suspension. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Srikakulam, conducted departmental enquiry and held that the charge leveled against the petitioner is not proved, since no witnesses supported the prosecution to prove the allegation. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Srikakulam, has sent enquiry report dated 25.03 2013, Having not agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, dissent memo along with copy of enquiry report was served to the petitioner on 23.04.2013 and major penalty was imposed only after giving due opportunity, and sought for dismissal of the writ petition. Once the Enquiry Officer has held that the charge is not proved, the 1®‘ respondent cannot impose the major penalty based on the preliminary report. Since the preliminary enquiry cannot be used in 8. regular enquiry, as the Charged Officer or the delinquent is not associated with it, and the opportunity to cross-examine the persons examined in such enquiry is not given. Using of such evidence would be the violation of the principles of natural justice. Moreover, the preliminary enquiry report loses its significance, once the regular enquiry is initiated by issuing the charge sheet to the delinquent. 6 JS,J W.P.(AT) No.78 0/202! In view of the foregoing discussion, the Writ Petition (AT) is 9. allowed, by setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 29.05.2013 issued by the respondent as well as the consequential proceedings issued by respondent Nos.2, 3 & 5. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of $.1.(Civil) notionally on par with his juniors, with all consequential benefits. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shall also stand closed. Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE N OFFICER To, 1. The Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam District at Srikakulam. 2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Visakhapatnam Range, Visakhapatnam 3. The Inspector General of Police, North Coastal Zone,.A.P, 4. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 5. The Dirtector General of Police, State of A.P. Mangalagiri. 6. One CC to Sri M R Tagore Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Services I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. Three CD Copies TF HIGH COURT DATED:08/05/2025 ORDER WP(AT).No.78 of 2021 ALLOWING THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS