APHC010482672022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 29432 & 29434 OF 2022 WRIT PETITION NO: 29432 OF 2022 Between: 1. CH. MADHUSUDHANRAO,, S/O. LATE BHASKARRAO, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, W/AS PC (606), PADMANABHAM POLICE STATION, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRL.SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY, VISAKHAPATNAM, AP. 3. THE ENQUIRY OFFICER CUM THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, NORTH SUB-DIVISION, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): WRIT PETITION NO: 29434 OF 2022 Between: 1. MAJJI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. LATE PARAMESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, W/AS PC (624), 1 TOWN POLICE STATION, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, 2 KM, J W.P.Nos.29432 & 29434 of 2022 AMARAVATHI. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY, VISAKHAPATNAM, AP. 3. THE ENQUIRY OFFICER CUM THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, NORTH SUB-DIVISION, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(s): G Seena Kumar Counsel for the Respondent(s): GP for Services I The Court made the following common order: Since the issues involved in the Writ Petitions are common, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the cases by way of a ‘Common Order’. 2. Heard Sri G.Seena Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioner(s) were appointed as Police Constable(s) in the year 1990 and 1991 respectively by the 2nd respondent at Visakhapatnam. Both of them were posted at the Harbour Police Station, Visakhapatnam. They were subsequently transferred in 2010 to the other Police Station(s) in Visakhapatnam. After the said transfer, a police complaint(s) were filed by one M/s. Sarat Chatterjee & Co., against their employee, namely P.Ramana Murthy and five others, alleging that the diversion of coal belonging to them occurred during loading and unloading. Based on the accused’s confession in the said case, the petitioner(s) were implicated in the crime under C.C.No.84 of 2011 (renumbered as C.C.No.825 of 2018). 3 KM, J W.P.Nos.29432 & 29434 of 2022 4. Based on the registration of the said criminal case and based on preliminary enquiry, the petitioner(s) were served a charge memo dated 18.02.2011, framing the following charges: In W.P.No.29432 of 2022 “Sri Ch.Madhusudhan Rao, S/o. Bhaskara Rao was enlisted as PC on 01.08.1990 in Visakhapatnam city, with General No.606/Vs. He is due to retire on superannuation by 30.11.2028. He is herein after called as Government Servant. That the Government Servant alleged to have exhibited gross misconduct in indulging in corrupt practices and conniving with bad elements in illegal diversion of cargo in port area, Visakhapatnam.” In W.P.No.29434 of 2022 “Sri Majji Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Late Parameswara Rao was enlisted as PC on 01.01.1992 in Visakhapatnam district with Gen.No.1434/VSR and presentingly working in Visakhapatnam city unit with General No.624/VS. He is due to retire on superannuation by 30.04.2031. He is herein after called as Government Servant. That the Government Servant alleged to have exhibited gross misconduct in indulging in corrupt practices and conniving with bad elements in illegal diversion of cargo in port area, Visakhapatnam.” 5. It is contended that pursuant to the said charges, despite an explanation submitted by the petitioner(s), inquiry officer was appointed. The petitioner(s) requested respondents to keep the departmental proceedings in abeyance 4 KM, J W.P.Nos.29432 & 29434 of 2022 pending disposal of the criminal case, but the respondents refused the same. The petitioner(s) thus approached the Tribunal by way of O.A.Nos.2141 & 2147 of 2011. The Tribunal stayed all further proceedings pursuant to the departmental proceedings. Subsequently, the petitioner(s) were acquitted in the criminal case vide judgment dated 06.07.2022 in C.C.No.825 of 2018 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. 6. Based on the said acquittal, the petitioner(s) submitted a representation to the authorities seeking the dropping of the charges. Since the respondents did not agree to the petitioner(s) request, the instant writ petition(s) are filed challenging the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in conducting the departmental enquiry, even though the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case. 7. While the writ petitions were pending, the Enquiry Officer concluded the enquiry and submitted his report dated 03.04.2023, observing that the charges framed against the petitioner(s) were not proved. However, without passing consequential orders on the basis of the said report vide proceedings dated 02.08.2023, issued a dissent report by the 2nd respondent alleging that there was sufficient evidence to hold the petitioner(s) were guilty of misconduct. Therefore, issued notice to the petitioner(s) to submit their explanation within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The 2nd respondent while endorsing dissent note, relied on the statement of LW1 to LW 5, recorded 5 KM, J W.P.Nos.29432 & 29434 of 2022 during preliminary enquiry. It is contended that the 2nd respondent, after issuing the dissent report, has called for objections from the petitioner(s). 8. Pursuant to the issuance of the dissent note, the petitioner(s) sought an amendment petition(s) to the relief sought in the writ petition(s). The application filed by the petitioner(s) in I.A.No.1 of 2024 was allowed. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Narayan Dattatraya Ramteerthakhar v. State of Maharashtra1, wherein it has been observed that the preliminary enquiry has nothing to do with the enquiry conducted after issuance of the charge-sheet. After the full-fledged departmental enquiry, the preliminary enquiry had lost its importance and cannot be relied upon. 10. Learned counsel further relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat2, wherein it has been observed that the statements recorded in preliminary enquiry cannot be used in regular enquiry as the delinquent is not associated with it and opportunity to cross-examine the persons examined in such enquiry is not given. The said evidence used against the delinquent will be in violation of principles of natural justice. 11. Thus, it is contended that after framing charges for holding a departmental enquiry and after the report of the enquiry officer holding that the 1 LAWS(SC)-1996-11-88 2 LAWS(SC)-2013-3-40 6 KM, J W.P.Nos.29432 & 29434 of 2022 charges have not been proved, the 2nd respondent ought not to have relied upon the preliminary enquiry; however, he issued a dissent note calling for objections. It is argued that it is unsustainable, as it is based on the preliminary enquiry. 12. The 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner(s) contentions are misconceived, the departmental proceedings were issued pursuant to the order passed in O.A.Nos.2141 & 2147 of 2011; and that there were no procedural irregularities in issuance of the impugned proceedings. 13. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I relies on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Sitaram Mishra 3, Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla v. State of Jammu and Kashmir 4 and Airports Authority of India v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee5. 14. Considered the submissions. In the criminal case in which the petitioner(s) were implicated, the petitioner(s) were acquitted. In the departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer also gave a report stating that the charges have not been proved. After appointment of Enquiry Officer, the proceedings of charge memo, merges with the report of the Enquiry Officer and the report of the Enquiry Officer would prevail. The reliance placed by the disciplinary authority in issuing the dissent note on the evidence collected during the preliminary enquiry, is not sustainable. 3 Civil Appeal No.6183 of 2010 4 (2023) 19 SCC 588s 5 Civil Appeal No.8414 of 2017 7 KM, J W.P.Nos.29432 & 29434 of 2022 15. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner(s), this court is of the view that as the preliminary enquiry loses its relevance after initiation of the departmental proceedings by framing of charges and the appointment of the Enquiry Officer, the attempt of the disciplinary authority to reopen the disciplinary proceedings based on the preliminary enquiry, after submission of the report by the Enquiry Officer holding that the charges framed against the delinquent employee are not proved, cannot be countenanced. 16. In the light of the foregoing, the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent are set-aside. 17. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 18.11.2025 BSK 8 KM, J W.P.Nos.29432 & 29434 of 2022 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NOS: 29432 & 29434 OF 2022 Date: 18.11.2025 BSK