IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT PETITION NO: 13547 OF 2010 Between: 1. The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City, Vijayawada. 2. The Director General of Police, Andrha pradesh, Hyderabad. 3. The Additional Director General of Police, Administration Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 4. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. ...Petitioners AND Smt. A. Susheela EX. WPC, Residence of II. No. 37-3-22, Women Police Constable, Badavapet, Kondaiah Street, Vijayawada. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Rep. by its Registrar, Purani Haveli, Hyderabad. 1. 2. ...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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Certiorari" calling for the records relating to and connected with the order dated 29-04-2009 in O.A.No. 3522/2006 on the file of Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash or set aside the same as erroneous in excess of jurisdiction and contrary to law I.A. NO: 2 OF 2010fWPMP. NO: 17066 OF 2010) 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 suspend the operation of the orders dated 29-04-2009 of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, which was rendered in O.A.No. 3522 of 2006 pending disposal of the Writ Petition I.A. NO: 1 OF 2010(WVMP. NO: 2958 OF 2010) Between: Smt. A. Susheela EX. WPC, Residence of II. No. 37-3-22, Women Police Constable, Badavapet, Kondaiah Street, Vijayawada: * ...Petitloner/2"'' Respondent AND 1. The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City, Vijayawada. 2. The Director General of Police, Andrha pradesh, Hyderabad. 3. The Additional Director General of Police, Administration Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 4. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. ...Respondents/Writ Petitioners 5. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Rep. by its Registrar, Purani Haveli, Hyderabad. ...Respondent/Respondent 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 in WPMP No. 17066 of 2010 in WP No. 13547 of 2010 dt.16.06.2010 Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI B SESIBUSHAN RAO The Court made the following: Order I APHC010315602010 IN THE HIGH GOURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) hS-S [3527] WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT PETITION NO: 13547/2010 Between: ...PETITIONER(S) The Commissioner Of Police, and Others AND ...RESPONDENT(S) Smt A Susheela Ex Wpc and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.KMALLIKARJUNA RAO 2.B SESIBUSHAN RAO The Court made the following Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Krishna Mohan) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 1®* respondent. This writ petition was filed questioning the order of the erstwhile 2. Tribunal in O.A.No.3522 of 2006 dated 29.04.2009. 3. The Tribunal allowed the O.A. filed by the 1=' respondent herein directing the respondents therein/ petitioners applicant therein/1"‘ respondent herein into benefits within a period of four (4) weeks from the said order. The respondent herein Constable, Traffic-ll, P.S.Vijayawada and she herein to re-instate the service with all consequential date of receipt of the was working as Woman Police was removed from the service by the proceedings of the petitioner herein dated and the appeal of the 1®* respondent herein 17.11.2004 was rejected by the 2 nd petitioner herein vide proceedings dated 28.03.2005 and the 4'^ petitioner herein confirmed the above said proceedings vide Memo dated 08.07.2005 imposing the punishment of removal of service against the 1 respondent. 4. Initially, she was charged with grave misconduct alleging that allowed her house to be used for the prostitution and thereby brought disrepute to the department and she involved she as an accused in Cr.No.500 of 2002 under Section 3 & 4 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) L&O, Machavaram P.S., Vijayawada. The basis Act of of the charge was mentioned in the Article-I of the statement of article of charge framed against the charged officer/ the 1"‘ respondent herein/ applicant therein. Another article of charge was also framed alleging that there was a dereliction of duty in absenting from traffic regulation duty at RTC bus stand, Vijayawada at 20-45 hrs on 24.06.2002 without any leave or permission. But both the learned counsels submit that the said charge was dropped subsequently. In view of the above said charges, the departmental proceedings 5. were proceeded with. For the purpose of the above said main charge, 6 witnesses’ statements were recorded along with the marking of the documents. In total 14 witnesses were examined before the enquiry officer as per Annexure-lll of the said statement of article of charge. At the time of conducting the above said enquiry, the above said criminal case in Cr.No.500 of 2002 registered under Section 3 & 4 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act of Machavaram P.S. was still pending vide C.C.No.1094 of 2002 on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. According to the respondent, the charges framed in the criminal 6. court and the charges framed in the departmental enquiry are one and the same. Whereas, it is the case of the petitioners that the witnesses who were examined in the criminal case and the witnesses who were examined in the departmental enquiry are different and the departmental enquiry was conducted as per the rules by giving due opportunity to the respondent herein / applicant therein at every stage. The punishment awarded to the applicant is proportionate to the charges framed against her. But basing upon some of the witnesses belonging to the department who supported the framing of charge against the delinquent employee. #' the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 08.01.2004 charged officer as guilty. Relying upon the holding the same, the disciplinary authority passed the above said impugned proceedings dated 17.11.2004 ordering removal from service of the 1®* respondent herein/ applicant therein/ the charged officer. 7. As stated above, the appeal of the 1 dated 28.03.2005 and the same respondent was rejected was confirmed in the proceedings of the 1 petitioner herein vide the above said Memo dated 08.07.2005. Thus, all the authorities concerned in hierarchy of the departmentai proceedings relied upon only the departmental witnesses who witnesses/ eye witnesses to the occurrence of the charged incident and the material witnesses including the decoy witness did not are not the direct support the department in the departmental disciplinary proceedings held against the 1®‘ respondent herein/ the applicant therein/ the charged officer. 8. The perusal of the above said departmental proceedings does not disclose the complicity/ involvement of the charged officer in the alleged incident which was framed as charge under the head of grave misconduct. It was not established whether the said house in which the alleged incident said to have been taken place was belonging to the charged officer either by way of owner or tenant at the relevant period. Soon after completion of the above said enquiry and submission of the enquiry report dated 08.01.2004, the above said criminal case also ended in acquittal vide judgment of the criminal court dated 06.08.2004 in C.C. No. 1094 of 2002. Even thereafter, while considering the case on hand, the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and the revisional authority ought to have also taken into consideration the said acquittal judgment in the criminal case which attained the finality as the impugned proceedings dated 17.11.2004, 28.03.2005 and Memo dated 08.07.2005 are much subsequent to it. It is true that the 1®* respondent was placed under suspension / 9. between 09.07.2002 to 18.11.2004. The erstwhile Tribunal relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in G.M.Tank vs. State of Gujarat and others^ held that the above said impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside in view of the clean acquittal of the accused in the criminal trial and as the facts and circumstances are substantially similar to each other either in the criminal case or in the departmental proceedings. 10. Since, the material witnesses did not support the prosecution case both in the criminal case and as well as in the departmental enquiry, the Tribunal rightly interfered with the above said impugned orders of the petitioners herein while allowing the above said O.A. before it. Since, the reasons assigned by the Tribunal are akin to the legal position and as the facts and circumstances warranted interference of the same, we see no '2006 (5)see 446 ^ • reason to interfere with the order of the erstwhile Tribunal passed in the above said O.A. dated 29.04.2009 as there is no merit in the case as discussed above. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR closed. //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 2. One CC to SRI B SESIBUSHAN RAO Advocate [OPUC] 3. Three CD Copies gsg HIGH COURT DATED: 07/05/2025 ORDER WP.No.13547 of 2010 ’S 16 JUN 2I)?5 S; ^ . Current Section .'y DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS