IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE /o Gt: !) - S.'.' I 'O w ! O PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO “i WRIT PETITION NO: 5670 OF 2020 Between: P. China Veeraiah, S/o, Subrahmanyam, aged about 55 years, Occ Police Constable, PC-1557 (under dismissal) Yeleswaram Police Station, East Godavari District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of AP, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Director General of Police, State of AP, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eluru Range, Eluru. 4. The Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District, Kakinada. ...Respondents 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 more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents awarded the punishment of dismissal from service vide G.O.Ms.No.97 HOME(SC.A) Department dt19.08.2016 issued by the 1st respondent as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper and contrary to APCS (CUM) Rules 1991 and may major violative of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the constitution of India and set aside * the same and consequently direct respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as Police Constable with all consequential benefits. lA NO; 1 OF 2020 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 G.O.Ms.No.97 Home(SC.A) Department dt:19.08.2016 issued by the 1st respondent with a direction to reinstate the petitioner into service as Police Constable Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. T S N SUDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following order: 1 APHC010092812020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 5670/2020 Between: P. China Veeraiah ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: ITS N SUDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER:- This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:- “...be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents awarded the major punishment of dismissal from service vide G.O.Ms.No.97 HOME(SC.A) DEPARTMENT, dt19.08.2016 Issued by the 1 arbitrary, unjust Improper and contrary to APCSjCC & A) Rules 1991 and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct St respondent as highly illegal, Wipi 2 respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as Police Constable with all consequential benefits...". The case of the petitioner in brief is that while he was working Police Constable at Yeleswaram PS of East Godavari District on false and 2. as baseless allegation he was kept under suspension on 28.03.2006 on the ground that he was involved in ACB case. Thereafter, on the basis of ACB case, the 1^‘ respondent issued a Memo No.449/SE.A3/2006-2, dated 30.01.2007 to initiate departmental action besides the pendency of ACB case on the same charge. In pursuance of the above Memo, the 3'"^ respondent issued a charge Memo on 14.03.2007 as per APCS (CC & A) Rules, 1991. The petitioner has submitted detailed explanation denying the charge and further requested to drop further action against the petitionerdue to pendency of criminal case on the same charge. Having not satisfied with the same, the respondents appointed the enquiry officer and directed to conduct the enquiry in the above charge. Thereafter, after conducting enquiry a detailed report was submitted to the higher authorities on 24.01.2009, but the charges not proved. Without considering the explanation of the petitioner, the respondents imposed major punishment of PPI for a period of one year with cumulative on future increments and pension by the 3'”'^ respondent 22.06.2009. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the appellate authority rejected the same on 18.12.2010 confirming the punishment awarded by the respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision before the 1®‘ respondent and the 1 was on St 3 #5$ respondent modified the punishment withholding the annual grade increments for two years without cumulative effect on 12.12.2014. After awarding the above punishment on the same allegation, the ACB Court convicted the petitioner on 21.06.2016 vide CC.No.54/2008 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Vijayawada. Against the same, the petitioner preferred a Criminal Appeal before the High Court vide Criminal Appeal No.574/2016 and this Court vide order, dated 15.07.2016 suspended the sentence imposed by the ACB Court in CrlA.MP.No.922/2016. During pendency of the Criminal Appeal, the 1"‘ respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.97 Home Department, dated 19.08.2016 awarding the punishment of dismissal from service against the petitioner as per APCS (CC & A) Rules, 1991. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed. Counter affidavit was filed by Respondent No.1. In the counter affidavit it was stated that vide G.O.Ms.No.97, home (SC.A) Department, dated 19.08.2016, the 1®‘ respondent imposed punishment of “dismissal from service” against the petitioner. Thereafter, the ACB Court convicted the 3. petitioner vide order, dated 20.06.2016. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed Crl.A.No.574 of 2016 before this Court and this Court, vide order dated 19.10.2023 has set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that Government has accorded permission to DG, ACB for filing SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Accordingly, SLP was filed and the same was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 27.09.2024. After dismissal of the SLP, the petitioner w 4 %> submitted representation to the Department with a request to reinstate into service. The request of the petitioner is under active consideration in the Government in consultation with advisory departments. Heard Mr T.S.N.Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. 4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that aggrieved by the conviction order passed by the ACB Court, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal vide Criminal Appeal No.574/2016 before this Court and this Court, vide order, dated 19.10.2023 in CrlA.No.574 of 2016 has set aside the sentence and conviction imposed by the ACB Court. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Paragraph No.78 of the order passed in Criminal Appeal No.574 of 2016, which is usefully extracted hereunder:- 5. 78. As a result, both Criminal Appeals are allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed against the appellants/A.0.1 and A.0.2 in C.C. No. 54 of 2008 on the file of the Special Judge for S.P.E. and A.C.B Cases-cum-lll Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, are hereby set aside, and the appellants/A-1 and A-2 are acquitted for the said offences. Further, the bail bonds of the appellants/A-1 and A-2 shall stand cancelled, and their sureties are discharged. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants/AI and A-2 shall be refunded to them. He further submits that on one hand, the respondent imposed punishment after completion of departmental proceedings as per the Memo issued by the respondent vide Memo No.449/SE.A3/2006-2. dated 30.01.2007 and on the other hand, as per the conviction awarded in ACB case, the 1®* 5 respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.97, dated 19.08.2016 awarding the punisinment of dismissal from service as per Rule 25 of ARCS (CC & A) rules, 1991 on the same charge. Thus, the action of the respondents in awarding two punishments on same charge is highly illegal, arbitrary and doctrine of double jeopardy. Hence, the impugned order passed by the 1®‘ respondent vide G.O.Ms.No.97 HOME DEPARTMENT, dated 19.08.2016, awarding the punishment of “dismissal from service” against the petitioner is liable to be set aside. Whereas, learned Government Pleader appearing for the 6. respondents submits that against the orders passed by this Court in Crl.A.No.574 of 2016, dated 19.10.2023 SLP was filed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same was ended in dismissal on 27.09.2024. He further submits that thereafter, the petitioner has filed representation with a request to reinstate him into service and the request of the petitioner is under consideration before the authorities concerned. Perused the record. 7. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that 8. vide order, dated 19.10.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.574 of 2016, the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner are set aside and the St petitioner was acquitted for the offences levelled against him. As the 1 respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.97 HOME(SA) DEPARTMENT, dated 19.08.2016 awarding the punishment of dismissal from service against the 6 petitioner during pendency of Criminal Appeal No.574 of 2016, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned G.O.Ms.No.97, dated 19.08.2016 passed by the 1®* respondent is highly illegal, arbitrary and is liable to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, the impugned G.O.Ms.No.97 HOME (SC.A) DEPARTMENT, dated 19.08.2016 passed by the 1®' respondent is hereby set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service as police constable within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled to claim any monetary benefits as he was not appointed on the principle of 'no work no pay’. 10. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// fr To, SECTION OFFICER 1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of AP, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Director General of Police, State of AP, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eluru Range, Eluru. 4. The Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 5. One CC to Sri. T S N Sudhakar Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Three CD ConiRs HIGH COURT DATED:07/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.5670 of 2020 ^ 1S MAR 2025 | ^ . Current Section DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS