IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AMAR 4 ■ Vi> n V ■J fVj.vfr'' ^.4-' AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA WRIT APPEAL NO: 56 QF 2021 RAJASEKHAR RAO Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set-aside the order dated 26.2.2020 passed in W.P.No.25105 of 2013 awtpass on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. The Union of India rep. by its Chief Security Commissioner Protection Force, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. 2. The Deputy Chief Security Commissioner, j Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. 3. The Divisional Security Commissioner Railway Railway Protection Force, South Railway Protection Force, South , Ananthapur Dist. Central Railway, Guntakal Division,Guntakal, ...APPELLANT(S) AND Y.Venkateswarlu,, S/o Late Y.Thimmappa, Hindu, aged about years Occ RPF Head Constable, Inspector T.E.Company, Vijayawada Division Vijayawada. ...RESPONDENT y lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order dt 26-02-2020 2013 pending disposal of Writ Appeal. passed in WP.No.25105 of Counsel for the Appellant(s):SRI J U M V PRASAD (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) Counsel for the Respondent: SRI K GANI REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER % APHC010043102021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3526] FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT APPEAL No. 56 of 2021 Between: The Union Of India and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND ...RESPONDENT Y Venkateswarlu Counsel for the Appellant(S) 1.J U M V PRASAD (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) Counsel for the Respondent: ; , 1.KGANI REDDY The Court made the following: i ' i 2 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao) Writ Petition No.25105 of 2013 is filed to declare the proceedings Force Order No.43/2013 No.X/P.227/153/2/2010 dated 22.02.2013 of the respondent No.2 in imposing punishment of reduction of rank from Assistant Sub-Inspector and in confirming the same by the respondent No.1, vide Force Order No.121/2013 (X/P.227/153/Appeal/ YV/2013) dated 30.07.2013, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently prayed to direct the respondents to extend all the benefits to the petitioner in the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector along with his juniors including seniority, pay fixation, promotion and arrears of salary. Brief facts of the Writ Petition are that the writ petitioner, by name, Y.Venkateswarlu, RPF Head Constable, Office of Inspector TE Company, Vijayawada Division, who was initially appointed as RPF 2. Constable on 18.11.1979 and subsequently promoted as Naik in the 1984 and further promoted as Head Constable in the year 1992. year The writ petitioner-respondent herein was subjected to the disciplinary proceedings for bribe taking from innocent hawkers. Accordingly, the respondent No.2 imposed punishment of reduction of rank from Assistant Sub-Inspector in pay band Rs.5200-Rs.20200 + GP Rs.2,800/- (Rs.4,200/- MACP) to the rank of Head Constable in the pay band of RS.5200-RS.20200 + GP Rs.2,400/- for a period of three years with 3 cumulative effect having effect on his future increments and seniority, vide proceedings dated 22.02.2013 and appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority, in parallel also filed a Writ Petition, vide W.P.No.25105 of 2013 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal, vide order dated 30.07.2013, confirming the orders of respondent No.2. Nonetheless, the order challenged in the Writ Petition dated 22.02.2013, was contested on the grounds that Rule 248.1 of the RPF Rules, 1987, outlines a specific procedure for initiating disciplinary proceedings when a complaint is received from the public or through a Court where civil or criminal action has been initiated against a member of the Force, in the present case that it does not attract the provisions of Rule 248.1 of the RPF Rules, ,1987, and, inter alia, it is contended that the inquiry must be conducted by an officer of a rank higher than the Assistant Security Commissioner; however, in this instance, the inquiry carried out by an officer below the rank of Assistant Security Commissioner. Additionally, it was pointed out that Sri Bhogiya Naik, an Inspector at the Gooty Post, s;erved as the Inquiry Officer despite facing a major punishment charge sheet. It was suggested that he conducted the inquiry in a cursory manner to curry favour with respondent No. 2; he conducted the enquiry in a perfunctory manner. Hence, prayed to set 3. was 4 . ^ aside the impugned order dated 22.02:2013, which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority, vide proceedings dated 30.07.2013. The aforementioned Writ Petition was resolved by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide an order dated 26.02.2020, based on the finding that a preliminary inquiry was conducted against the petitioner who is working as Sub-Inspector, by the Assistant Commissioner. Subsequently, an inquiry was carried out by an officer of Inspector rank, which was contrary to the established Rules. According to Rule 248(1) of the RPF Rules, if the delinquent is a Sub-Inspector, the inquiry officer must hold a rank higher than that of Assistant Commandant placing a reliance on a judgment of the former High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.23494 of 2004, and granted liberty to the respondents therein to initiate action against the writ petitioner in accordance with the RPF 4. Rules. 5. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge of the common High Court has allowed the Writ Petition No.25105 of 2013 vide order dated 26.02.2020, has annulled the impugned Force Order No. 43/2013 No. X/P.227/153/2/2010 dated 22.02.2013 that had imposed punishment against the petitioner and permitted the respondents to conduct a fresh inquiry in accordance with the RPF Rules. In arriving such finding, the learned single Judge has placed reliance on the order of the former High 5 % Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No. 23494 of 2004, finding comparable circumstances. The aforementioned order was challenged in the current Writ 6. Appeal by the respondent authorities, arguing that the inquiry was conducted by an Inspector who holds a rank superior to that of the writ ASIPF, in accordance with petitioner-respondent, currently serving as Rule 153.2.1 of the RPF Rules, 1987, and the Rule No.248.1 is not applicable to the writ petitioner’s case. Furthermore, it was stated that the order in W.P.No.23404 of 2004, dated 22.12.2004, was challenged through an intra-Court appeal (W.A.No.873 of 2005). A Division Bench of the common High Court had modified the single Judge's order. The Bench emphasised that if this principle were upheld, every inquiry would * need to be conducted by an Enquiry Officer of equal rank to the Preliminary Enquiry Officer, which in this case would be the Assistant Security Commissioner. Consequently, the single Judge's order was modified or altered. Therefore, the respondent authorities urged that the Writ Appeal be allowed by dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the writ petitioner-respondent. 7. The learned arguing counsel Sri Sitaram Chaparla representing the writ petitioner has not disputed the arguments made by the writ appellants. The counsel for the writ petitioner has acknowledged that the officer who conducted the preliminary inquiry is indeed competent. 6 However, it is contend that this officer is currently facing a major punishment charge and conducted the inquiry to gain favour from the respondent No. 2. Despite submitting representations to the authorities, the authorities have not been taken into account. Therefore, it was urged that the intra-Court appeal be dismissed on these grounds. 8. When this Court directly asked the learned counsel representing the writ petitioner-respondent about the prejudice suffered by the writ petitioner due to the inquiry conducted by an officer facing serious disciplinary charges, he would reiterate the same fact and stated that in- order to obtain favourable orders from the respondent No.2 conducted the enquiry in perfunctory manner without giving any reasonable opportunity to the writ petitioner to present his he case. 9. Upon reviewing the inquiry report, it is clear that the writ petitioner was afforded significant opportunities to present his case. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate or establish any prejudice resulting from the inquiry being conducted by an officer facing charges. It is a settled law that the burden lies upon the delinquent to demonstrate that the enquiry was not conducted in proper manner and it is conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. As seen from the enquiry report, that it indicates that an ample opportunity was given to the writ petitioner and there is no breach of principles of natural justice. 7 % The Hon’ble Apex Court in United Commercial Bank and others Vs. P.C.Kakkar Chairman and Managing Director and others\ after referring several authorities, held in paragraph Nos. 11 and 12 as follows: 10. "11. The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was a defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in the Wednesbury's case (supra) the court would not go into the correctness of choice made by the administrator open to him and the court should not substitute its decision to that of the administration. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision. To put differently unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the Court / Tribunal, there is no scope for interference. 12. Further to certain litigations it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In a normal course, if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate it would be appropriate to direct the disciplinary authority, to the appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed." 2003 LLR 436 (SC) r 8 As seen from the contentions raised in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, except statement made that the Enquiry Officer who appointed to conduct enquiry against the writ petitioner is facing charges, there are no allegations suggesting that the officer conducted the inquiry in a biased or malicious manner, or that it violated the principles of natural justice. Furtherrfiore, the Enquiry Officer was not named as a party in a personal capacity. 11. was An inquiry is not rendered invalid solely because it is conducted by officer facing charges, unless specific bias against that officer can be demonstrated. Since the writ petitioner failed to provide evidence of bias prejudice from the Inquiry Officer during the proceedings, this does not constitute valid grounds to dismiss the disciplinary action against the accused. The order from the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 23494 of 2004, dated 26.02.2020, was modified in the intra-Court appeal (W.A. 12. an or No. 873 of 2005), which determined that an officer of a higher rank than As established by the delinquent can conduct a preliminary inquiry, judgments from the Supreme Court, the writ Court does not function as an Appellate Authority over the decisions of the authorities. numerous be, unless there is a clear regardless of how erroneous they may violation of justice principles, bias in the inquiry process, or not considering the evidence in proper manner. The writ petitioner has not argued that the inquiry was conducted in a biased manner. 9 13. The order referred by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.23494 of 2004, dated 26.02.2020, is no longer valid as it has been modified in W.A. No.873 of 2005 . Therefore, the petitioner cannot rely on the order from W.P.No.23494 of 2004. Consequently, we are inclined to grant the relief in this Writ Appeal by reversing the order dated 26.02.2020 issued by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.25105 of 2013, and the order impugned it is hereby set aside. 14. Jsfevertheless, this Court believes that the punishment imposed the writ petitioner is disproportionate to the charges. Therefore, we allow on the writ petitioner to submit a representation to the relevant authority within two weeks on receiving this order. Upon receiving the representation, the jurisdictional authority is directed to review it in accordance with law and regulations and to reconsider the punishment, changing it from 'with cumulative effect' to 'without cumulative effect and communicate the decision to the writ petitioner within a period of 3 months from the date of representation. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. However, no costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed. 15. Sd/- M S V NAVEEN CHANDRA DEPUTY REGtSTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE N OFFICER To, 1. Y.Venkateswarlu, S/o Late Y.Thimmappa, Hindu, aged about years, Occ RPF Head Constable, Inspector T.E.Company, Vijayawada Division, Vijayawada. 2. One CC to SRI J U M V PRASAD (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI K GANI REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 4. Three C.D. Copies nm HIGH COURT DATED:09/05/2025 g 03JUN 2025 ^ * Current Section rnii ORDER WA.No.56 of 2021 DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS