IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NOS: 18876. 18874 AND 18911 OF 2019 WRIT PETITION NOS: 18876 OF 2019 Between: B.Narasinga Rao, S/o late Surayya, aged 54 years, Occ. Head Constable (Civil) Ananthagiri PS, Visakhapatnam District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The Superintendent of Police, Visakhapatnam District at Visakhapatnam. 2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police Visakhapatnam Range, Visakhapatnam. 3. The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada Krishna District. 4. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary Home (Services. I) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. ...Respondents praying that in may more particularly one in the respondents herein in Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the imposing major punishment of Reduction of Time Scale of Pay by Two for Two Years with effect on Future Increments and Pension and r/yeating the suspension period ’|^foc.p.No.22/PR/A6/2010, dated 25-10-2014 and consequential rejection orders in appeal vide Proc. C.No.09/ Appeal/2015, dated 26-03-2015 by . the 2nd respondent and consequential modification orders passed vide Proceedings Rc.No.544/A2/NCZ-Hyd/Revision/2015. dated 07-11-2015 highly illegal, arbitrary and the enquiry officers report dated 21-01-2013 and CCA Rules and consequentially the Hon’ble court may pleased to set aside the impugned punishment vide order dt. 25-10-2014 and consequential orders dated 26-03-2015 and 07-11-2015 by granting all consequential benefits to the petitioner. as not on duty vide impugned as lA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 to suspend the impugned Proc.C.No.22/PR/A6/2010, dated 25-10- 2014 and consequential rejection orders in appeal vide Proc. C.No.09/ Appeal/2015, dated 26-03-2015 by the 2nd respondent and consequential modification orders passed Hyd/Revision/2015, dated 07-11-2015. vide Proceedings Rc.No.544/A2/NCZ- Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. M R TAGORE Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I WRIT PETITION NO: 18874 OF 2019 Between: M.Venkateswarlu, S/o late Brundavanam, aged 52 years. Occ Head Constable (Civil) Anakapalli Rural, Visakhapatnam District ...Petitioner AND 1. The Superintendent of Police, Visakhapatnam District at Visakhapatnam. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Visakhapatnam Range, Visakhapatnam. The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada, Krishna District. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary Home (Services. I) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. ...Respondents 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 to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the respondents herein in imposing major punishment of Reduction of Time Scale of Pay by Two Stages for Two Years with effect on Future Increments and Pension and treating the suspension period as not on duty vide impugned Proc. C.N0.22/PR/A6/2OI0, dated 25-10-2014 and consequential rejection orders in appeal vide Proc.C.No.09/ Appeal/2015, dated 26-03-2015 by the 2nd respondent and consequential modification orders vide Proceedings Rc.No.544/A2/NCZ Hyd/Revision/2015, dated 07-11-2015 as highly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the enquiry officer's report dated 21-01-2013 and law and consequentially the Hon'ble court may pleased to set aside the impugned punishment vide order dt. 25-10-2014 and the consequential orders dated 26-03-2015 and 07-11-2015 by granting all consequential benefits to the petitioner. 2. 3. 4. lA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 to suspend the impugned Proc. C.No.22/PR/A6/2010, dated 25- 10-2014 and consequential rejection orders in appeal vide Proc. C.No.09/ Appeal/2015, dated 26-03-2015 by the 2nd respondent and modification orders passed vide Proceedings Rc.No.544/A2/NCZ- Hyd/Revision/2015, dated 07-11-2015. consequential Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. M R TAGORE Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I WRIT PETITION NO: 18911 OF 2019 Between: SK A Samdhani, S/o Sk G.Valli, aged 49 years, Om Head Constable (Civil) A.Koduru PS, K.Kotapadu Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The Superintendent of Police, Visakhapatnam District at Visakhapatnam. 2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Visakhapatnam Range, Visakhapatnam. 3. The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada District. 4. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary Home (Services. I) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. ...Respondents Krishna Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction may more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the respondents herein imposing major punishment of Reduction of Time Scale of Pay by Two in Stages for Two Years with effect on Future Increments and Pension and treating the suspension period as not on duty vide impugned Proc. C.N0.22/PR/A6/2OIO, dated 25-10-2014 and consequential rejection orders in Appeal vide Proc. C.No.09/ Appeal/2015, dated 26-03-2015 by the 2nd respondent and consequential modification orders passed vide Proc. Rc.No.544/A2/NCZ Hyd/Revision/2015, dated 07-11-2015 as highly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the enquiry officer's report dated 21-01-2013 and law and consequentially the Hon'ble court may pleased to set aside the impugned punishment vide order dt. 25-10-2014 and all consequential consequential orders dated 26-03-2015 and 07,11-2015 by granting all benefits to the petitioner. lA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 to suspend the impugned Proc. C.No.22/PRJA6/2010 2014 and consequential rejection orders in Appeal vide Proc. C.No.09/ Appeal/2015, dated 26-03-2015 by the 2nd respondent and modification dated 25-10- consequential Rc.No.544/A2/NCZ- orders passed vide Hyd/Revision/2015, dated 07-11-2015 Proc. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. M R TAGORE Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following Common Order: 1 APHC010393602019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION Nos. 18876, 18874 & 18911 of 2019 WRIT PETITION NO: 18876/2019: Between; B.NarasingaRao ...PETITIONER AND The Superintendent Of Police and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.M R TAGORE Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1.GP FOR HOME(AP) 2.GP FOR SERVICES I WRIT PETITION NO: 18874/2019: Between; ...PETITIONER M.Venkateswarlu, AND The Superintendent Of Police and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: ...RESPONDENT(S) 1.M R TAGORE Counsel for the Respondent(S); 2 \ 1.GP FOR SERVICES I WRIT PETITION NO: 18911/2019: Between: Sk. A.Samdhani, ...PETITIONER AND The Superintendent Of Police and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.M R TAGORE Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION Nos. 18876, 18874 & 18911 of 2019 COMMON ORDER; WRIT PETITION NO: 18876/2019; This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for; "...to issue a Writ order or direction more particuiarly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the respondents herein in imposing major punishment of Reduction of Time Scale of Pay by Two Stages for Two Years with effect on Future Increments and Pension and treating the suspension period as not on duty vide impugned Proc. C.N0.22/PR/A6/2OIO dated 25.10.2014 and consequential rejection orders in appeal vide Proc.C.No.09/Appeal/2015 dated 26.03.2015 by the 2nd respondent and consequential modification orders passed vide Proceedings Pc. No.544/A2/NCZHyd/Revision/2015 dated 07.11.2015 as highly illegal, arbitrary and the enquiry officers report dated 21.01.2013 and CCA Rules and consequentially the Honble court may pleased to set aside the impugned punishment vide order dated 25.10.2014 and consequential orders dated 26.03.2015 and 07.11.2015 by granting all consequential benefits to the petitioner and may pass... ” WRIT PETITION NO: 18874 of 2019: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with 2. the following prayer for; “...to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the respondents herein in imposing major punishment of Reduction of Time Scale of Pay by Two Stages for Two Years with effect on Future Increments and Pension and treating the suspension period as not on duty vide impugned Proc. C. No. 22/PR/A6/2010 dated 25.10.2014 and consequential rejection orders in appeal vide Proc C No. 09/ Appeal/2015 dated 26.03.2015 by the 2nd respondent and consequential modification orders vide Proceedings 4 Rc.No.544/A2/NCZ Hyd/Revision/2015 dated 07.11.2015 as highly illegal arbitrary and contrary to the enquiry officers report dated 21.01.2013 and law and consequentially the Hon’ble court may pleased to set aside the impugned punishment vide order dated 25.10.2014 and the consequential orders dated 26.03.2015 and 07.11.2015 by granting all consequential benefits to the petitioner..." WRIT PETITION NO: 18911 of 2019: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with 3. the following prayer for: “...to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the respondents herein in imposing major punishment of Reduction of Time Scale of Pay by Two Stages for Two Years with effect on Future Increments and Pension and treating the suspension period as not on duty vide impugned Proc.C.No 22/PR/A6/2010 dated 25.10.2014 and consequential rejection orders in Appeal vide Proc.C.No.09/Appeal/2015 dated 26.03.2015 by the 2""' respondent and consequential modification orders passed vide Proc.Rc.No.544/A2/NCZ Hyd/Revision/2015 dated 07.11.2015 as highly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the enquiry officers report dated 21.01.2013 and law and consequentially the Honble court may pleased to set aside the impugned punishment vide order dated 25.10.2014 and all consequential orders dated 26.03.2015 and 07.11.2015 by granting all consequential benefits to the petitioner..." Since the subject matter of these Writ Petitions is one and the same, at 4. the request of the learned counsel on both the sides, these matters are heard together and passed the following common order. Heard Sri M.R.Tagore, learned Counsel for the petitioners and the 5. learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I on behalf of the respondents. 5 s Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are working in Police Department as Constables, Visakhapatnam District. They were under suspension on the allegation that they are involved in Ganja Smuggling case. The Preliminary Report shows that the Inspector of Police has collected money from Ganja dealers with the help of the Constables. The Preliminary report does not show any role of the petitioners. Thereafter, they reinstituted into service. Learned Counsel would further submit that a 6. were charge memo was issued by the respondent No.1 alleging that they acted as mediators between the Ganja smugglers and the Inspector of Police. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct Departmental enquiry against the petitioners. The Enquiry Officer held that the charge against the petitioners not proved. Learned Counsel would further submit that despite the same, the respondent No.1 has taken a dissent note, discarding the enquiry report basing on the confession statement of the Ganja Smuggler that he paid amount to the petitioners. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the finding given by the Enquiry Officer is perfectly correct and no credibility can be given to the accused in a case. Learned Counsel would further submit that petitioners imposed punishment of reduction of time scale of pay for two years which may effect on their future increments and pension and suspension period is treated as not on duty. Learned Counsel would further submit that the petitioners preferred an appeal to the respondent No.2 that was dismissed against which, they preferred a Revision wherein the punishment was 7. were 1 6 modified as reduction of time scale pay by one year which may affect the future increments and pension vide orders dated 07.11.2015. Learned S Counsel would further submit that the petitioners submitted a mercy petition to the respondent No.4 that was rejected. Learned Counsel finally submits that in preliminary enquiry nothing is found against the petitioners. The Enquiry Officer held that the charge is not proved against the petitioners. Despite the same, the Disciplinary Authority has imposed a major punishment without following the procedure under law and CCA Rules. Learned Counsel finally prays to set aside the impugned Orders and declare that they are entitled for promotion on par with their juniors and all consequential benefits. Learned Assistant Government Pleader vehemently opposed the petitions and would submit that the Disciplinary Authority having right to discard the Enquiry Report has taken an independent decision over the matter and rightly awarded major punishment to the petitioners. Learned Assistant Government Pleader finally prays for dismissal of the petitions. It is settled position of law that a High Court cannot act as an appellate authority in so far as disciplinary proceedings are concerned. The jurisdiction of the High Court in these matters are to be applied only in cases of non- observance of principles of natural justice; findings based on extraneous considerations, bias, perversity, or no evidence; disproportionate punishment, etc. The principles underlying the interference of the High Court under Articles 226/227 are discussed in a catena of judgments viz., Chatrapal v. State of 8. 9. 7 Uttar Pradesh^ at para 12, State of Andhra Pradesh v. Chitra Venkata Rao^ at paras 21-23, and State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh^ at para 4. Considering the submissions made and on a fair look at the material placed on record, this Court is of the view that the respondent-authorities have 10. followed the procedure established under law in initiating the enquiry and awarding the punishments. Needless to say, this Court should not interfere ; \ unless it is established that there is violation in following the procedure in the Departmental proceedings. It is apt to mention that the Disciplinary Authority has got several options to take any action against the employees. The Disciplinary Authority can accept the enquiry report and close it or the Disciplinary Authority may direct for enquiry afresh or may take a dissent view and fine the employee as guilty for the charges and impose punishment. It is also not the case that the punishment awarded to the petitioners is disproportionate and surprising shock to the conscience of the Court. Admittedly, the petitioners are working in Police department which is a uniform service. They are expected to maintain great level of discipline and integrity while discharging their duties. It is alleged against the petitioners that they worked as mediators to the Inspector of Police and the Ganja Smugglers and collected amounts. The Appellate Authority rejected their appeal. However, the Revisional Authority modified the punishment and reduced it to reduction of one increment with cumulative effect. \2024) 2 SCR 348 ^(1976) 1 SCR 521 ^(1977) 2 see 491 8 In the light of the discussion referred supra, this Court is of the view that 11. I I the interference of this Court is unwarranted in the present petitions. In the result, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. 12. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- y.SRs DEVi ASSISTANT //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri. M R Tagore Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Services I, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Three CD Copies 2. 3. GSC HIGH COURT DATED:13/03/2025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos. 18876,18874 and 18911 of 2019 t 0 9 JUL 2025 f DISMISSING THE WPS WITHOUT COSTS