APHC010529512009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. WRIT PETITION NO: 163/2009 Between: Director General And Inspector General Of Police & 2 Others and Others K Prasad Arpc Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent: 1. M R K CHAKRAVARTHY IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT PETITION NO: 163/2009 Director General And Inspector General Of Police & 2 ...PETITIONER(S) AND ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): GP FOR SERVICES I Respondent: M R K CHAKRAVARTHY IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3527] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN HARI HARANADHA SARMA ...PETITIONER(S) ...RESPONDENT 2 HBKM,J & AHHS,J W.P.No.163 of 2009 The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Krishna Mohan) Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Writ Petition was filed questioning the order the passed by the erstwhile Tribunal in O.A.No.3114 of 2002, dated 28.02.2006 allowing the O.A by setting aside the impugned proceedings in C.No.346/PR/92, dated 21.02.2001 of the 3rd respondent therein/3rd petitioner herein and the orders of the 2nd respondent therein/2nd petitioner herein in C.No.98/Appl./2001, dated 01.09.2001 and also the orders of the 1st respondent therein/1st petitioner herein in T.Dis.No.1106/T3/2001, dated 29.12.2000, with no costs. 3. The respondent, as an applicant approached the above said erstwhile Tribunal in the above said O.A, while he was working as Police Constable in Armed Reserve, Nellore District. He challenged the punishment of postponement of two increments for two years with effect on future increments and pension, which was imposed on the applicant therein through the proceedings of the 3rd respondent therein/3rd petitioner herein dated 21.02.2001. Then, the respondent herein/applicant therein preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent therein/2nd petitioner herein and same was also rejected 3 HBKM,J & AHHS,J W.P.No.163 of 2009 vide proceedings dated 01.09.2001 of the 2nd respondent therein/2nd petitioner herein against which he preferred revision before the 1st respondent therein/1st petitioner herein and the same was dismissed in T.Dis.No.1106/T3/2001, dated 29.12.2001. 4. The Tribunal, considering the matter on merits and upon careful consideration of the impugned proceedings therein, set-aside the same by allowing the above said O.A basing upon the report of the enquiry officer and dissent proceedings of the disciplinary authority. 5. The statement of alleged victim Smt. Nagisetty Vijayamma also reads as under: “Statement of Nagisetty Vijayamma, W/o. Babulu, age 20 yrs. Harijan by caste, Pokkandla Village, Sydapuram Mandal. “I am the native of Pokkandala village. I married one Nagireddy Babulu four years back. He is residing in the village. On 18-6-92 myself and my husband were sleeping in front of our house on a cot. At about 11.30 P.M. four persons came to her and I cried loudly and my husband Nagisetty Babulu woke up. There is a dispute/in between my husband Nagisetty Babulu and Maddata Parandhaamaiah over the land. No one caught hold of me and lifted me. My husband Nagisetty Babulu fabricated a story stating that they attempted outrage of my modesty and it is a false one. On 3-9-93 Dy. Supdt. 4 HBKM,J & AHHS,J W.P.No.163 of 2009 of Police, Gudur recorded my statement and I have not stated anything except than this. But I do not know how the D.S.P. recorded the false matter” and it is marked as (Ex.P.3).” 6. As seen from the record, even P.W.2 does not support the case of the prosecution version of the departmental proceedings. She does not state anything about the allegation leveled against the respondent herein/applicant therein with regard to the serious charge framed against him in the departmental enquiry. 7. In view of the same, as there is no evidence forthcoming in any manner even to have a prima facie satisfaction, the order of the Tribunal cannot be interfered with. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any, deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN _________________________________ JUSTICE A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA 04.03.2025 MDP