APHC010395552025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 21987/2025 Between: 1. R ADINARAYANA, S/O LATE JAGANNADHAM, AGED 43 YEARS WORKING AS SUB INSPECTOR, APSPF UCIL, THUMMALAPALLY YSR KADAPA - DIST ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL ANDHRA PRADESH SPECIAL PROTECTION FORCE (APSPF) HEAD QUARTERS VIJAYAWADA. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, ANDHRA PRADESH SPECIAL PROTECTION FORCE (APSPF) VIJAYAWADA. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 topleased to issue a writ, order nature of Writ of Mandamus and supply the relied upon documents at by Inspector petitioner on 28/29.04.2024 N.Satyanarayana, APSPF, ONGC, Razole and HC 1560, Sri N. Chitti Babu and all other listed witnesses charge memo dated 26-06-2024 forthwith as mentioned in the and pass 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 Pleased to stay the departmental proceedings in pursuance of the Memorandum Rc No. APSPF/A3/PR/01/2024, dated: 26-06-2024 issued by 2nd Respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.21987 of 2025 O R DE R: In the present writ petition, the Petitioner is seeking for Audio call records dated 28/29.04.2024. 2. The case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner was issued charge memorandum alleging dereliction of duties that on the intervening night of 28/29.04.2024 at about 01.30 hrs., the patrolling party in-charge had informed the Petitioner over phone that the theft of Condensate Oil took place at KW-40 Well site, Kesanapalli-GGS and the culprits escaped by leaving 40 Lts., capacity tin half filled with Condensate oil and other material i.e. 200 Lts., and 40 Lts., capacity drums/tins, plastic pipe, tools etc., at the well site. As the Petitioner neither rushed to the spot nor informed the same to the Inspector, APSPF Razole, ONGC officials and local police despite repeated phone calls made by the Inspector, APSPF, ONGC, Razole. It is also alleged that the Petitioner has behaved rudely with Chief Manager, Security ONGC when enquired about the theft incident. 4 3. The Petitioner vide representations dated 22.02.2025 and 24.02.2025 had requested for supply of audio call records and list of phone calls made on 28/29.04.2024 at 01.30 hours from HC 1560 and Inspector, APSPF, ONGC, Razole and list of witnesses in the charge memo to defend his case effectively. On the representations of the Petitioner, the disciplinary authority informed the Petitioner vide letter dated 02.06.2025 that call records are not available in the office. Thereupon, the Petitioner filed an appeal to DG/APSPF, Vijayawada on 12.06.2025. As the disciplinary enquiry was being proceeded with, the Petitioner filed the present writ petition contending that without the call data sought by the Petitioner, the defence by him would stand prejudiced. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner reiterated his submissions. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that the call records are not available with the Office of the disciplinary authority and in the absence of availability of call records, the insistence of Petitioner to produce the same is wholly unwarranted. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further 5 submits that it is for the Petitioner to procure call records from the concerned mobile operator rather than insisting the disciplinary authority. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in his arguments on 21.08.2025 would contend that in the letter dated 28.08.2024, a connected file of 157 pages was sent to the disciplinary authority, but the same was not furnished to the Petitioner. Today i.e. 22.08.2025, learned Assistant Government Pleader produced a copy of 157 pages so as to enable the same to be served on the Petitioner, however, the counsel for Petitioner appeared through video conferencing. 7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader would then submit that the said file would be furnished to the Petitioner during the enquiry. 8. In the light of the submissions made, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition as it is the obligation of the Petitioner to substantiate his defence in the enquiry by producing the call records. Further, it would be impossible to insist on production of call records if the Respondents do not have the call 6 records. It is to be noted that disciplinary enquiries are based on preponderance of probability rather than absolute proof. 9. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 22.08.2025 KLP