1 HN, J W.P.No.11620_2013 APHC010766672013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 11620/2013 Between: 1. M.RAVI PRASAD,, S/O. VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: R.P.F. CONSTABLE, R/O. RLY. QTR. NO. 864/A, HANUMAN NAGAR, NEAR RPF BARRACKS, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, GUNTAKAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS DEPUTY CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, RAIL NILAYAM, SECUNDERABAD. 2. THE DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, GUNTAKAL DIVISION, GUNTAKAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, GUNTAKAL DIVISION, GUNTAKAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 toto issue Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in imposing the punishment of Withholding his next due annual increment for a period of 2 years with cumulative effect vide Proc. No. G/XP.227/153/ 2 HN, J W.P.No.11620_2013 11/MRP/2010, dated 31-03- 2011 which is confirmed by the 2nd respondent vide Proc. Divisional Order No. 100/2011, (No. G/XP.227/153/Appeal/ MRP/2011), dated 05-12-2011 which is further confirmed by the 1st respondent vide Force Order No. 115/2012 (No. X/P.227/153/ Rev.Petition MRP/2012, Dated 03-07-2012 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay the arrears of salary duly fixing the pay of the petitioner with all monetary benefits and all consequential benefits including seniority, promotion, ACP Benefits, etc IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 14392 OF 2013 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 expedite the early hearing of the writ petition, pending disposal of the Writ Petition IA NO: 3 OF 2013(WPMP 64635 OF 2013 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. J M NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VENNA HEMANTH KUMAR(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) 3 HN, J W.P.No.11620_2013 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 11620 of 2013 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the punishment imposed by the 3rd respondent in withholding his annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect, vide proceedings dated 31.03.2011. The said proceedings were confirmed by the 2nd respondent vide orders dated 05.12.2011 and were further affirmed by the 1st respondent vide the orders dated 03.07.2012. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the Railway Protection Force on 02.07.1998. It is submitted that the petitioner was issued a charge sheet dated 03.09.2010 alleging the misconduct and gross dereliction of duty. On the said charges, an enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report, which was considered by the 3rd respondent, and the impugned punishment was imposed on the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the charges framed. It is further submitted that the petitioner had valid reasons for not being able to attend duty on 06.01.2010 and 07.01.2010. It is submitted that on the date when the petitioner was to join duty and perform escort duty, the petitioner was suffering from giddiness and therefore had to obtain treatment at the nearest available clinic. The petitioner also submitted medical records indicating his treatment. The petitioner was given first aid and was also prescribed medication on 4 HN, J W.P.No.11620_2013 06.01.2010. It is submitted that though the petitioner submitted the relevant medical report, the respondent authorities failed to consider the same and imposed a punishment which is disproportionate to the allegations made. 4. The learned Standing counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner participated in the enquiry and failed to explain as to what prevented him from approaching the Railway Hospital, which was near the Railway Station, instead of obtaining treatment at a private clinic. It is also stated that the petitioner was alleged to have committed various offences at an earlier point of time and was appropriately dealt with for such acts. 5. The learned Standing counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioner availed the remedies of appeal and revision before the appellate and revisional authorities, and that both the appellate and revisional authorities did not find any scope for interference with the well-considered order of the disciplinary authority. 6. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no Railway Hospital at Renigunta and that the petitioner could not get treated at the Railway Hospital at any other location. It is submitted that the petitioner had to immediately rush to the nearest available medical facility near the Railway Station and accordingly got himself treated at a private medical facility at Renigunta. 7. Heard. perused the record. 8. The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned proceedings deserved to be interfered with in the present facts and 5 HN, J W.P.No.11620_2013 circumstances of the case. This Court directed the learned Central Government Counsel to submit a copy of the charge sheet, enquiry report and other documents relating to the present case. The charge sheet and the enquiry report have been filed before this Court. 9. As seen from the enquiry report, the Enquiry Officer recorded the statement of as many as nine witnesses on behalf of the prosecution and one witness on behalf of the defence. However, the statement of the petitioner was not recorded by the Enquiry Officer, and no reasons were stated in the enquiry report for not recording the statement of the petitioner. An enquiry conducted without recording the statement of the delinquent employee cannot be considered as a proper enquiry on merits. 10. On these considerations, this Court is inclined to modify the punishment imposed by the 3rd respondent to the extent of withholding of annual increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect. Accordingly, the orders passed by the disciplinary, appellate, and revisional authorities shall stand modified to the above extent. 11. With the above direction, the present Writ Petition stands disposed off. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date:03.02.2026 NKA 6 HN, J W.P.No.11620_2013 68 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 11620 of 2013 Date: 03.02.2026 NKA