IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 11022 OF 2021 Between: A.Srikanth @ Srikanth Reddy, S/o A.Satyanarayana Reddy (Late), Aged about 39 years, Occ-Ex-PC 760, formerly 9^*^ Bn, APSP, Venkatagiri, while he was in PTO, Hyderabad on attachment basis, Resident of D.No. 1/461-377, Indira Nagar, Maivya Nagar Post, Gudur(M), SPSR Nellore District, A.P - 524 101. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary Home, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. The Additional Director General of Police, APSP Bns, Police Headquarters, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. The Inspector General of Police, APSP, Bns, Mangalagiri, Amaravathi, Guntur District. The Dy. Inspector General of Police, Range-IV, APSP Bns, Amaravathi, Guntur District. The Commandant, 9*^ Bn, APSP Venkatgiri, SPSR Nellore District, 2. 3. 4. 5. ...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 an order, writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the proceedings in R.C.No.A3/Rev-02/2021 dated 11.05.2021 of the 2 nd respondent in rejecting the revision, the proceedings in RC.No.68/Appeai/2019- 20, dated 30.05.2020 of the 4**^ respondent in rejecting the Appeal, and the proceedings in D.No.315/2016, dated 01.04.2016 of the 5‘^ respondent in imposing the punishment of Dismissal from service deemed to have from the date of conviction i.e. 28.03.2016 based on the conviction in C.C.No.7 of 2014 on the file of the Hon'ble Court of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at .Kakinada, East Godavari District, though the Criminal Appeal No. 173 of 2016 was allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence awarded against the petitioner vide Calendar and Judgment dated 14.02.2019 by the Hon'ble Court of III Additional Sessions Judge at Kakinada, East Godavari District, are illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to the procedure under rule 20, contrary to Rule 3 of the ARCS (conduct) Rules, 1964, in violation of the Article 311 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 26 of the AP Civil Services (CCA) Rules, and in violation of principles of natural justice, and in violation of Art. 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service, with all consequential service benefits. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 operation of the proceedings in R.C.No.A3/Rev- 02/2021 dated 11.05.2021 of the 2"^^ respondent in rejecting the revision^ the proceedings in RC.No.68/Appeal/2019-20, dated 30.05.2020 of the 4th respondent in rejecting the Appeal, and the proceedings in D.No.315/2016, dated 01.04.2016 of the 5^^ respondent in imposing the punishment of Dismissal from service deemed to have from the date of conviction i.e. 28.03.2016 based on the conviction in C.C.No.7 of 2014 on the file of the Hon'ble Court of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Kakinada, East Godavari District, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.PADMANABHA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES -1 The Court made the following order: 6* APHC010193602021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 11022/2021 Between: ...PETITIONER A.srikanth @ Srikanth Reddy, AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.V PADMANABHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER:- Heard Sri VPadmanabha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services I. The petitioner while working as Police Constable was suspended from service vide proceedings of the 5**^ respondent dated 20.09.2013. Later a Charge Memo was issued by the 5“^ respondent framing following charge: 2. ARTICLE-I “Gross reprehensible conduct by involved in criminal case in Cr.No.46/2013 U/Sec.498 (A) r/w 34 IPC of Mahila RS., Kakinada, dt. 03.09.2013." It is stated that the petitioner submitted his explanation to the Charge Memo. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner, accordingly enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report. Based on the report of the Enquiry Officer, the 5‘^ respondent imposed the punishment of dismissal from service from the date of conviction, i.e., 28.03.2016. The petitioner was convicted in C.C.No.7 of 2014. Against the order of conviction, the petitioner has preferred appeal against the order of conviction, before the Sessions Court, Kakinada. The learned III : Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada, acquitted the petitioner, setting aside the conviction vide the order dated 14.02.2019. 6. It is stated that against the order of dismissal from service by the Disciplinary authority, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The 4th respondent herein, being unsuccessful, filed before the 2nd respondent. The Revisionary Authority has also confirmed the order of the Disciplinary authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the departmental and criminal proceedings are based on the same set of facts that the petitioner had allegedly been involved in a criminal case filed against him by his wife. It is further contended that the charges framed in the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal proceedings are one and the same. In the light of the finding of the Appellate Court that the charges framed against the petitioner were not proved, sustaining the disciplinary proceedings 3. 5. a revision 7. 3 on the same set of charges is unjust and arbitrary. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the case falls within the exceptions carved out by the Apex court in the case of Capt.Paul Anthony AIR (1999) 1416 (SC). The learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that the order of the disciplinary authority is in derogation of the provisions of Rules 9 and 20 to 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules and Art.311 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relies on the following judgments in support of his contention. (i) the decision of this Court in the case of Bandreddy Raja Gopal Reddy Vs. High Court of Judicature Registrar Vigilance, Hyderabad and Others (ii) the decision of this Court in the case of RRam Chandra Reddy Vs. IndustrialTribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur and Another^ (iii) the decision of this Court in the case of NCL Industries Ltd. Co., Hyderabad Vs. Union of India and Others^ (iv) the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others^ the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Allahabad Bank and Others \/s. Krishna Narayan Tewari* (V) (vi) the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Lai Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others^ ^ 2022 (6) ALD 59 (A.P) ^ 2022 (0) ALD 72 (A.P) ^2023 see OnLine Se 205 2017 Lawsuit (Se) 2 ^ 2023 Lawsuit (Se) 1170 4 Perused the record carefully and considered the rival submissions. The Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the following charges framed against the petitioner: 8. ARTICLE-I “Gross reprehensible conduct by involved in criminal case in Cr. No. 46/2013 U/Sec.498 (A) r/w 34 IPC of MahHa PS., Kakinada, dt. 03.09.2013." 9. However, the Enquiry Officer went beyond the scope of enquiry, dwelling into other issues, and submitted his report, thereby prejudicing the mind of the disciplinary authority. It appears from the record that the disciplinary authority did not take exception to the fact that the Inquiry Officer had exceeded the scope of enquiry. The same constitutes a gross violation of principles of natural justice since the Enquiry Officer’s report is not based on the charge placed before him. The sole charge framed pertains to his involvement in a criminal case. The Disciplinary authority simply endorsed the view of the Enquiry Officer in dismissing the petitioner from service. In the light of the finding of the Appellate Court in the criminal case, the guilt of the petitioner accused was not proved; the appellate/revisionary authorities could have set aside the order of dismissal from service. The petitioner's exoneration in the criminal case is based on the evidence, observing that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused. And the said judgment has become final, therefore, there is no reason to uphold the same charges in disciplinary proceedings. 5 Therefore, the writ petition is accordingly allowed, setting aside the order of the 5*^ respondent - disciplinary authority dated 01.04.2016 and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with consequential 10. benefits. The petitioner is also entitled for 50 % of the backwages computed with effect from the order of acquittal in Crl.A.No.173 of 2016 dated 14.02.2019. 11. With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand Sd/- m. SRJMIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR closed. //TRUE COPY// EC^TtO^rOFFlCER To, SE 1. The Principal Secretary Home, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Additional Director General of Police, APSP Bns, Police Headquarters, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 3. The Inspector General of Police, APSP, Bns, Mangalagiri, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 4. The Dy.lnspector General of Police, Range-IV, APSP Bns, Amaravathi Guntur District. 5. The Commandant, 9*^ Bn, APSP Venkatgiri, SPSR Nellore District, 6. One CC to Sri V Padmanabha Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Services -1, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. Two CD Copies RAM HIGH COURT DATED;05/05/2025 s 21! MAY 2025 ORDER WP.No.11022 of 2021 ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS