APHC010026502021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Friday, the Twenty Eighth day of March Two Thousand and Twenty Five The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition (AT) No. 2213 Between: Mypati Penchalaiah, PC 1473, Ozili Police Station, SPSR Nellore District. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department, Secretariat and others Counsel for the petitioner: Sri D.Khasim Saheb Counsel for the respondent G.P for Services-I The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Friday, the Twenty Eighth day of March Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition (AT) No. 2213 of 2021 Mypati Penchalaiah, PC 1473, Ozili Police Station, SPSR Nellore ...Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home artment, Secretariat and others ….Respondent etitioner: espondents: The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] Mypati Penchalaiah, PC 1473, Ozili Police Station, SPSR Nellore ...Petitioner Home Respondents 2 BSB, J W.P (AT) No.2213 of 2021 ORDER: This petition was filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, questioning the action of the respondents imposing the punishment in proceedings C.No.02/PR-A8/2011, dated 26.05.2015, the punishment of RTSP by 2 stages for 2 years with cumulative effect on future increments and pension and the suspension period w.e.f., 15.05.2010 to 10.08.2011 is treated as not on duty by the 4th respondent and modifying the punishment of PPI for three years without effect on future increments and pension vide proceedings C.No.245/ Appl./2015, dt.08.02.2016 passed by the 3rd respondent and confirming the same by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings D.Dis.No.610/T2/ 2016, dt.21.06.2017 and also rejecting the mercy petition by the 4th respondent vide proceedings C.No.54/Mercy-A8/2017, dt.29.01.2018 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law under these facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The case of the petitioner, briefly stated, is as follows: a. The petitioner was appointed as Police Constable on 05.04.1994 at Guttaluru Police Station. While the petitioner was working at Nellore-II Town Police Station, he was suspended from service on 10.05.2010 on the allegation that while on night beat duty on 06.05.2010 at 23.15 hours, he beat Pasupuleti Suresh Babu and Chenamuru Ravi with lathi indiscriminately in an intoxicated state at PSR Bus Station, Nellore and caused swollen injuries to them. In this regard, a case in Crime No.60 of 2010 for the offence under Section 324 IPC of Nellore II Town police station was registered against the petitioner. The 4th respondent / Superintendent of Police, SPSR Nellore 3 BSB, J W.P (AT) No.2213 of 2021 District, awarded punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for two years with cumulative effect treating the suspension period from 15.05.2010 to 10.08.2011 as not on duty for the above alleged allegation of misconduct. b. The petitioner filed appeal petition, dated 14.10.2015, before the 3rd respondent / Inspector General of Police, South Coastal Zone, Guntur, who modified the punishment to that of postponement of increments for a period of three years without effect on future increments and pension, vide proceedings, dated 08.02.2016. c. The revision petition, dated 09.08.2016, filed by the petitioner was considered and rejected by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings, dated 21.06.2017. d. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed mercy petition, dated 16.09.2017, before the 1st respondent / Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, and the same was also rejected, vide proceedings, dated 29.01.2018. 3. The memorandum of charge for imposing major penalty under rule 20 of A.P.C.S (CC & A) Rules, 1991, against the petitioner, dated 22.01.2011, issued by the 4th respondent/Superintendent of Police, SPSR Nellore District, reads as follows: “The undersigned propose(s) to hold an inquiry against PC 1473, M.Penchalaiah, of Nellore II Town PS now under suspension under Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services ( Classification, Control and Appeal ) Rules, 1991. 4 BSB, J W.P (AT) No.2213 of 2021 The substitute of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior in respect of which the inquiry is proposed to be held is set out in the enclosed statement of articles of charge and a statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior in support each articles of charge is enclosed. A list of witnesses by whom and a list of documents by which, the articles of charges are proposed to be sustained are also enclosed. 2. P.C.1473, M.Penchalaiah of Nellore II Town PS now under suspension is directed to submit within 10 days of the receipt of this memorandum a written statement of his defence and also state whether be desired to be heard in person. 3. He is informed that an inquiry will be held only in respect of the articles of charge as are not admitted. He should therefore, specifically admit or deny each article of charge. 4. PC 1473, M.Penchalaiah of Nellore II Town PS now under suspension is further informed that if he does not submit his written statement of defence on or before the date specified in para above, or does not appear in person before enquiring authority or otherwise fails or refused to comply with the provisions of Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 or the other directions issued in pursuance of the said rule, in inquiring authority may hold the inquiry against him ex parte. 5. 5. Attention of PC 1473, M.Penchalaiah of Nellore II Town PS now under suspension is invited to Rule 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 under 5 BSB, J W.P (AT) No.2213 of 2021 which no Government servant shall bring or attempt to bring any extraneous influence to bear upon any authority for the furtherance of his interest. If any representation is received on his behalf from another person in respect of any matter dealt with in these proceedings, it will be presumed that PC 1473, M.Penchalaiah, of Nellore II Town PS now under suspension is aware of such a representation and that it has been made at his instance and action will be taken against him for violation of Rule 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. 6. The receipt of this memorandum may be acknowledged.” 4. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nellore II Town PS filed charge sheet in Crime No.60 of 2010 against the petitioner for the offence under Section 324 IPC and the same was taken on file by the Court of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nellore, in C.C.No.233 of 2011. The said calendar case ended in acquittal of the petitioner by judgment, dated 19.03.2012, holding that he is not guilty of the offence under Section 324 IPC. 5. In the departmental inquiry, the article of charge framed against the petitioner reads as follows: “Grave misconduct in consuming alcohol while on night beat duty on 06-05-2010 at 23.30 hrs, wearing mufti and beat Pasupuleti Suresh Babu and Chanamuru Ravi with lathy indiscriminately in intoxication stage at PSR Bus station, Nellore and caused swelling injuries to them and involved as an accused in Cr.No.60/2010 u/S 324 IPC of Nellore II Town 6 BSB, J W.P (AT) No.2213 of 2021 P.S, thereby damaged the image of police in the eyes of public.” 6. The petitioner submitted written statement of defence on 30.04.2012 offering his explanation and praying to take a sympathetic view of the matter. 7. The inquiry officer (Sub Divisional Police Officer, Nellore Rural) submitted inquiry report on 25.11.2013 holding that the allegation levelled against the charged officer was not proved. 8. The 4th respondent having been not satisfied with the report of the inquiry officer, issued dissent notice, dated 17.12.2014, to the petitioner directing him to offer further written statement of defence, if any, within ten (10) days from the date of receipt of the notice while supplying the copy of the inquiry report. 9. The petitioner once again submitted his written statement of defence on 08.01.2015, praying to drop further action pursuant to the departmental inquiry conducted against him. 10. The 4th respondent / Superintendent of Police, issued orders vide proceedings, dated 26.05.2015, imposing the punishment against the petitioner. The operative portion of the order, dated 26.05.2015 reads as follows: “I have gone through the connected records, and minutes of the Enquiry Officer and PR file and further written statement of defence of the charged officer thoroughly and not agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The further written statement of defence of the charged officer is not at all 7 BSB, J W.P (AT) No.2213 of 2021 convincing. During the oral enquiry, PWs 3, 5 6 and 8 have turned hostile and deviated to their earlier statements. This clearly proves that the charged officer has influenced the prosecution witnesses and tried to escape from the clutches of law. Hence, he is awarded the punishment of “RTSP by 2 stages for 2 years with cumulative effect on future increments and pension and the suspension period w.e.f 15.05.2010 to 10.08.2011 is treated as not on duty.” 11. Aggrieved by the punishment, the petitioner preferred appeal petition and in the appeal the punishment of “RTSP by two stages for two years with cumulative effect on future increments and pension” awarded by the Supdt. of Police, SPSR Nellore was modified to that of “PPI for three years without effect on future increments and pension”. 12. The revision petition and the mercy petition filed by the petitioner were also rejected as already stated supra. 13. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioner approached this Court praying to set aside the punishment imposed against him on the following grounds: (i) The orders passed by the respondents are contrary to law, weight of evidence, probabilities of the case and against the principles of natural justice; (ii) The petitioner was acquitted in C.C.No.233 of 2011 for the offence under Section 324 IPC, and therefore, the question of imposing the penalty against the petitioner is against the law and non-application of mind; 8 BSB, J W.P (AT) No.2213 of 2021 (iii) The 4th respondent ought to have considered the report given by the enquiry officer and without looking into the same, imposing the punishment is illegal; (iv) The 4th respondent ought to have seen the medical certificate issued by the medical officer which is to the effect that the petitioner was not under the influence of alcohol at the time of the alleged incident; (v) The appellate authority / 3rd respondent also failed to look into the judgment in the criminal case, the enquiry report and passed the modified order, dated 08.02.2016, which is unreasonable; (vi) The rejection of the revision petition by the 2nd respondent and the mercy petition by the 1st respondent without looking into the merits of the case are illegal and against the law. 14. 14. In Shashi Bhusan Prasad Vs. Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force and Ors.1, it was held at para No.17 as follows: “The scope of departmental enquiry and judicial proceedings and the effect of acquittal by a criminal Court has been examined by a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Depot Manager A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya and Ors.[1997(2) SCC 699]. The relevant para is as under: ...The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. The 1 Neutral Citation: 2019 INSC 850 9 BSB, J W.P (AT) No.2213 of 2021 criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty, the offender owes to the society or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible. It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may or may not be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer. Each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. Offence generally implies infringement of public (sic duty), as distinguished from mere private rights punishable under criminal law. When trial for criminal offence is conducted it should be in accordance with proof of the offence as per the evidence defined under the provisions of the Evidence Act. Converse is the case of departmental enquiry. The enquiry in a departmental proceedings relates to conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent officer to punish him for his misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. That the strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence 10 BSB, J W.P (AT) No.2213 of 2021 Act stands excluded is a settled legal position. The enquiry in the departmental proceedings relates to the conduct of the delinquent officer and proof in that behalf is not as high as in an offence in criminal charge. It is seen that invariably the departmental enquiry has to be conducted expeditiously so as to effectuate efficiency in public administration and the criminal trial will take its own course. The nature of evidence in criminal trial is entirely different from the departmental proceedings. In the former, prosecution is to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the touchstone of human conduct. The standard of proof in the departmental proceedings is not the same as of the criminal trial. The evidence also is different from the standard point of the Evidence Act. The evidence required in the departmental enquiry is not regulated by the Evidence Act. Under these circumstances, what is required to be seen is whether the departmental enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defence at the trial in a criminal case. It is always a question of fact to be considered in each case depending on its own facts and circumstances. …” 15. The result in the criminal case cannot be adopted in the departmental enquiry as the degree of proof required is different in them and the evidence may also be different. It is a settled legal proposition that the disciplinary authority has wide discretion in imposing punishment for a proved delinquency, subject, of course, to principles of proportionality and fair play. Unlike in criminal cases, in matters of disciplinary proceedings, Courts only interfere on grounds of 11 BSB, J W.P (AT) No.2213 of 2021 proportionality when they find that the punishment awarded is disproportionately high degree, or if the conscience of the Court itself is shocked. 16. In the present case, the punishment imposed is commensurate with the charge proved and the said punishment cannot be considered to be a major penalty, viz., dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank. 17. For the foregoing reasons, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned proceedings. 18. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J 28-03-2025 RAR