APHC010404302011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: Between: P.p. Umesh The Government Of India Rep By Its Secretary and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K JYOTHI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P VIJAYA KUMARI(CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 26419/2011 ...PETITIONER AND The Government Of India Rep By Its Secretary and ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent(S): P VIJAYA KUMARI(CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3457] SECOND DAY OF JANUARY ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 26419/2011 Order: The petitioner is challenging the proceedings dated 11.05.2010, the subsequent proceedings dated 29.09.2010, and the revisional proceedings dated 31.03.2011. [2. The petitioner joined the respondent No.2 as a constable in 1990. On 23.09.2009, while the petitioner was on duty at the south gate of HPCL Visakhapatnam, the Vigilance officer found one bag containing Rs.1,125/-, and the petitioner sought an explanation. On verification of the said bag, an amount of Rs.1,125/- was found. The bag was kept on the table, and Rs.50/- was inside the pass section near the door. The Vigilance Team informed the concerned officer, and an article of charge was framed against the petitioner, alleging gross misconduct, violation of orders and dereliction of duty against the petitioner. 3. The petitioner submitted his explanation for the charges, and an enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer submitted his report. The disciplinary authority passed an order dated 11.05.2010 after elaborately considering the issue. The disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service with immediate effect and that two-thirds of compensation pension and gratuity. 3 4. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, and the appellate authority vide order dated 29.09.2010 modified the punishment and directed reinstatement of the petitioner into service and also imposed the punishment of reduction of Pay by three increments in the pay band-1 for a period of five years with further direction that during the period of reduction, he will not earn increments and on expiry of this period the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of Pay. The petitioner filed a review before the revisional authority, vide order dated 31.03.2011, the revisional authority dismissed the revision by declining to interfere with the modified penalty awarded to the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bag, which contained Rs.1,125/-, was claimed by one Sri U.K.Sharma, the proprietor of a Security Services Agency which HPCL Visakhapatnam Plant engaged. He stated that he had left the black colour bag at the South Gate when he came there at about 20:00 hours on 23.09.2009 to make a phone call from the gate. He realized that he had lost his bag after he reached Patna. He also detailed the bag's contents, which contained several other items like a tiffin box, napkin, Key in a ring, one steel glass, etc. The said Sri U.K.Sharma's statement was recorded, and he was cited as witness D.W.1. The DW.1 returned from Patna after one and half months and filed a complaint before HPCL Management. It is also submitted that DW.1, on the instructions of HPCL Management, filed a police complaint regarding his missing bag. The disciplinary authority had considered the statement of DW.1; however, it has 4 chosen not to rely on the statement because DW.1 had filed a complaint one and half months after he lost the bag. It is not disputed that D.W.1 hailed from Patna, and he could have filed a complaint only after returning to Visakhapatnam. Admittedly, there are some contradictions in the statements that were recorded. 6. It is also stated in the Final Order dated 11.05.2010 that D.W.1 Sri U.K.Sharma had produced a duplicate key that matched with the key found in the bag. 7. The learned counsel submits that with all these findings, the disciplinary authority could not have imposed the severe punishment of compulsory retirement from service when the petitioner could not be held responsible for the money in the bag. It is submitted that it is not the case for the respondents that the petitioner was charged with collecting money to extend any official favour to some third party while on duty at the back gate of HPCL. 8. The learned Standing Counsel appearing virtually online submits that the petitioner was discharging his duty at South Gate at CISF Unit, Visakhapatnam and a preliminary enquiry was conducted by Sub-Inspector Sri M.V. Surendran, in the preliminary enquiry, it was established that the petitioner was found to have committed misconduct, which requires further enquiry. As such, the articles of charge were framed against the petitioner. 9. It is also submitted that the respondents have conducted a fair enquiry, and the petitioner has participated. It is submitted that the money recovered in the bag was an unaccounted amount, and the seizure list was prepared in the 5 presence of witnesses who had endorsed the seizure memo. It is submitted that the petitioner was granted ample opportunity for submitting his defence. It is submitted that it is not the case of the petitioner that respondent No.1 has not followed the principles of natural justice while conducting an enquiry. The Court's attention is drawn to Para No.2 of the counter, whereby the details of the articles found in the bag are mentioned. It is submitted that the enquiry officer cannot repose confidence in the statement of DW1, and the reasons for not reposing confidence in DW1 are also mentioned in the paragraph. It is submitted that the petitioner works in a uniformed, disciplined force, and any misconduct would disrepute the entire force. It is also submitted that any misconduct on the part of the respondent could be viewed seriously and dealt with appropriately by the respondent authorities. 10. It is submitted that the appellate authority has sympathetically dealt with the issue and reduced the punishment; as such, submits that no further interference with the punishment imposed on the petitioner is required. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents. 12. Perused the record. 13. The challenge of the petitioner to the impugned proceedings dated 11.05.2010 and subsequent proceedings dated 29.09.2010, and the revisional proceedings dated 31.03.2011, on the ground that the respondents could not ascertain with cogent evidence that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct in collecting money in exchange for any official favour. 6 14. After perusing the enquiry report, this Court is inclined to exercise the writ jurisdiction considering how the petitioner was punished for no fault of his. The analysis of the presenting officer shows that there is no possibility of the firm of a proprietor possessing the substandard bag and giving undue credence to the lodging of a complaint by D.W.1 after a lapse of more than one and a half months. The enquiry officer summarized the conclusion of the enquiry report based on several presumptions that do not withhold scrutiny of law and logic. 15. The impugned proceedings challenged in this writ petition deserve to be set aside for the following reasons. The impugned proceedings dated 11.05.2010 whereby the petitioner was punished compulsory retirement from service with immediate effect and with two-thirds of Compensation Pension and Gratuity. The appellate authority duly considered the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The punishment was modified as follows: "Reduction of Pay by three increments in the Pay Band-1 for a period of five years with further direction that during the period of reduction, he will not earn increments and on expiry of this period the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay". The Revision Petition filed against the revised orders was rejected vide proceedings dated 31.03.2011. 16. The enquiry proceedings do not ascertain the involvement of the petitioner in either the collection of money in exchange for official favour or the safekeeping of the said money in a black bag, which the Vigilance Department 7 found. The D.W.1 claimed that the bag belonged to him, and he realized that he misplaced his bag/lost his bag only after reaching Patna. D.W.1 was the proprietor of the Security Service Provider, and he approached the Management of the respondent only after returning to Visakhapatnam from Patna after a period of one and a half months. It was on the advice of respondent, D.W.1, had filed a complaint regarding his missing bag. The delay in filing the F.I.R. by D.W.1 cannot be considered grounds for disbelieving the claim of D.W.1 over the bag. D.W.1 also detailed the contents of the bag and a duplicate key that D.W.1 produced matched with the key found in the bag. The respondents ignored such cogent evidence on the bag's ownership and disbelieved the statement of D.W.1. 17. The punishment of reduction of Pay by three increments in the Pay Band-1 for five years with further direction that during the period of reduction, he will not earn increments, and on expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of Pay is a significant punishment which could not have been imposed on the petitioner without there being any evidence to connect the dots of commission of misconduct by the petitioner. 18. This Court is conscious of the limited scope of interference in matters relating to disciplinary proceedings and punishments imposed by the disciplinary authority. However, this Court can interfere in matters where the punishment is shockingly disproportionate. The present case, with the facts and circumstances, would call for interference by this Court. There is 8 absolutely no finding given by the enquiry officer holding the petitioner directly or indirectly responsible for finding money in a bag that belongs to D.W.1. 19. There is also no direct evidence or any other form of evidence that would indicate that the petitioner had collected money in exchange for official favours and hid the money in the black bag that did not belong to the petitioner. 20. The conclusion drawn by the presenting officer is purely based on the assumptions of the presenting officer, and the impugned proceedings are issued based on the presumptions and beliefs of the presenting officer without any evidence. Such proceedings deserve to be set aside as they are patently irrational and against the principles of natural justice. 21. For these reasons, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned proceedings. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 22.01.2025 PNS 9