Allowed

A.Prabhakar v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Jan 2023WP/30674/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed three writ petitions by police constables. The Court set aside their dismissal and the rejection of appeals, finding the departmental enquiry flawed and the dismissal illegal due to discharge in criminal proceedings and lack of evidence, directing reinstatement.

What did the court decide?

The orders of dismissal and appeal rejection were set aside, and the petitioners were directed to be reinstated into service with all consequential benefits.

A.Prabhakar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos. 30674, 30766 & 30857 of 2021

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

Since the issue to be resolved in these three writ petitions

¶5

and the respondents to the writ petitions are one and same, I deem

¶6

it appropriate to dispose of these three writ petitions by way of this common order.

¶7

Heard Sri A.K. Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents.

¶8

For the sake of convenience and to avoid ambiguity in the discussion, the facts in W.P.No.30674 of 2021 are taken into consideration.

¶9

In brief, the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Constable by the 3^rd respondent and from the date of his appointment, he has been discharging duties to the satisfaction of the higher authorities and there are no complaints whatsoever

¶10

against him. While so, on the instructions of the SDPO of

¶11

¶12

NV,J W.P.Nos.30674 of 2021 & batch

¶13

Peddapuram Police Station through the Sub Inspector of Police, Peddapuram P.S., having obtained permission from the CCTNS Incharge, he went to Peddapuram Police Station where he was informed that Crime No.291 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 380 and 411 of IPC was registered against him, the petitioner (A.7) in W.P.No.30766 of 2021, the petitioner (A.5) in W.P.No.30857 and others on 16.09.2014 and then he was arrested. The allegation in the complaint is that the petitioner was involved in theft of Panchaloha idol of naked lady (worth about Rs.3.00 crores) along with the petitioners in other writ petitions and others.

¶14

i) After enlarging on bail, the petitioner was put under suspension and Memorandum of Articles of Charges was made for imposing a major penalty under Rule 20 of A.P.C.S. (CC & A) Rules, 1991 (for short ‘the Rules, 1991) by appointing an Enquiry Officer. Accused Nos.1 to 4 made a statement before the Enquiry Officer that they did not know the petitioners. However, the Enquiry Officer, without dealing with any of the statements made by accused Nos.1 to 4, who are only witnesses, while preparing the mediators’ report dated 16.09.2014, came to the conclusion that the allegations are proved against the petitioners and accordingly,

¶15

¶16

NV,J W.P.Nos.30674 of 2021 & batch

¶17

submitted the Minutes to the 3^rd respondent vide letter dated 16.11.2015 holding that the charges levelled against the petitioners/charged officers are proved. Whereas the petitioner along with the petitioners in other writ petitions have filed a Criminal Petition No.4187 of 2018 in C.C.No.270 of 2017 before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapuram, East Godavari District, seeking their discharge from the charges under Sections 380 and 411 of IPC. The lower Court, after going through the entire documents on record and on hearing both the counsels, found that there is no prima facie case against the petitioners, and accordingly, allowed the criminal petition and discharged the petitioners from the charges levelled against them, by an order dated 17.07.2019.

¶18

ii) However, basing on the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the 3^rd respondent dismissed the petitioner from service by proceedings dated 26.04.2021. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2^nd respondent, who, without verifying the facts and the grounds raised in the appeal, rejected the appeal by an order dated 26.11.2021. Challenging the orders passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3, the present writ petition is filed.

¶19

¶20

NV,J W.P.Nos.30674 of 2021 & batch

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the

¶22

Enquiry Officer examined A.1 to A.7 on behalf of the Department in which A.1 to A.4 did not adduce anything about the presence and identity of the petitioners in the alleged offence. However, the Enquiry Officer, purely basing on the evidence of A.5 to A.7, who are none other than the Preliminary Enquiry Officer i.e., the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the Circle Inspector and the Sub Inspector of Police, had submitted a report before the 3^rd respondent that the allegations levelled against the petitioners in the departmental enquiry were proved, disregarding the principles in conducting fair enquiry. The learned counsel would further submit that during departmental enquiry, the Preliminary Enquiry Officer categorically stated that he never visited the scene of offence at Narayanapuram village; that he did not verify whether the petitioners, who were on training during the course of alleged offence, had obtained any leave during training; and that he neither verified nor seen the general diary information of the petitioners. Further, no proof of evidence is filed either before the Enquiry Officer or before this Court to disprove the fact that the petitioners

¶23

¶24

NV,J W.P.Nos.30674 of 2021 & batch

¶25

were at the police training center at Anantapur and Vizianagaram at the time of alleged offence.

¶26

i) The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that no person lodged any complaint against the petitioners regarding the theft of alleged idol from Narayanapuram village. Furthermore, the petitioners were at the respective police training centers at Anantapur and Vizianagaram at the time of alleged offence. Therefore, the police came to a false conclusion and submitted a false report against the petitioners before the Enquiry Officer. The learned counsel would contend that the petitioners were discharged from the charges levelled against them by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapuram, East Godavari District vide order dated 17.07.2019 in Criminal Petition No.4187 of 2018 in C.C.No.270 of 2017 by observing that the owner of the alleged theft property was not traced out and any person claiming as the owner has not made any complaint with regard to the theft of the alleged property. More over, neither the possession of the theft property nor recovery of the same from the petitioners was not proved. This indicates that the petitioners were falsely implicated in the crime for the reasons best known to the higher authorities.

¶27

¶28

NV,J W.P.Nos.30674 of 2021 & batch

¶29

The alleged idol was never recovered by the police and not placed before the Court below and the value of the idol arrived at by the police is also not supported by any technical evidence or licensed valuer.

¶30

ii) The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were dismissed from service on the false report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and without any evidence against the petitioners, though the petitioners were discharged from the charges levelled against them by the competent criminal Court, which is illegal, perversed, arbitrary and against the principles of fair trial/enquiry. The learned counsel would further submit that assailing the orders of dismissal dated 26.04.2021, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the 2^nd respondent. But, the appellate authority, without considering the evidence, the nature of enquiry and the manner of fair trial of the enquiry, and without assigning any reasons, simply confirmed the orders of the original authority and rejected the appeal.

¶31

iii) In support of his submissions, the learned counsel relied upon the judgments rendered by the learned Single Judge of this

¶32

¶33

NV,J W.P.Nos.30674 of 2021 & batch

¶34

Court in W.P.No.9305 of 2021 dated 27.07.2021 and

¶35

W.P.No.12223 of 2020 dated 08.12.2020. The learned counsel submits that in view of the ratio laid down by this Court in the afore-mentioned judgments, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside.

¶36

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioners were involved in the case in crime No.291 of 2014 of Peddapuram P.S. for the offences punishable under Sections 380 and 411 of IPC. As per the orders of the 3^rd respondent dated 20.02.2015, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Rampachodavaram conducted an enquiry as per the procedure contemplated under the Rules, 1991 against the petitioners and the Enquiry Officer took the Mediators’ report dated 16.09.2014 and other material evidence into consideration and held that the charges framed against the petitioners were proved. As per the confession of A.1 to A.4, the petitioners were not involved in the present case. As such, the 3^rd respondent placed the petitioners under suspension. The Enquiry Officer discussed the evidence of the witnesses and basing on his

¶37

¶38

NV,J W.P.Nos.30674 of 2021 & batch

¶39

report, which is categorised as a case of moral turpitude, the 3^rd respondent awarded the punishment.

¶40

i) The learned Government Pleader would further submit that the assailing the orders of dismissal, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the 2^nd respondent, who after going through the entire record, the evidence of the witnesses, the relevant documents, and the explanation submitted by the petitioners, came to the conclusion that there are no merits to interfere with the orders of the original authority and accordingly, rejected the appeal. Further, the petitioners were provided an ample opportunity for adducing evidence and cross-examining the witnesses, and hence, they cannot find fault with the enquiry. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot be interfered.

¶41

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents, it is an admitted fact that the petitioners were on training at their respective centers, Anantapur and Vizianagaram, at the time of occurrence of the alleged offence. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioners were

¶42

¶43

NV,J W.P.Nos.30674 of 2021 & batch

¶44

discharged from the charges levelled against them by the competent criminal Court after going through the entire accusation and record. It is also an admitted fact that there is no complaint by the owner of the property that his property was stolen by somebody and on the other hand, it was neither identified nor recovered either from the petitioner or from any third party.

¶45

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were falsely implicated in the crime, is valid, in view of the fact that there is neither complaint/report by the owner of the property nor recovery/possession of the alleged theft property from the petitioners and the Investigating Officers did not visit the scene of offence and also in view of the orders of the Court below discharging the petitioners from the charges levelled against them. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer is not fair and proper and though A.1 to A.4 did not state anything against the petitioners, but upon the statements of A.5 to A.7, who are the members of the Investigating Team, and by relying upon their statements, the Enquiry Officer held that the charges are proved against the petitioners, is also sustainable for the reason that

¶46

¶47

NV,J W.P.Nos.30674 of 2021 & batch

¶48

there are no independent witnesses or no material is placed before the Enquiry Officer to prove the allegations made against the petitioners, and the findings of the enquiry authority are contrary to the orders of the competent Court below.

¶49

The contention of the learned Government Pleader that the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry as per the procedure and the petitioners were provided ample opportunity of hearing and as such, it cannot be said that the enquiry was not conducted in a fair manner by the Enquiry Officer, is not acceptable, in the absence of any independent witnesses to substantiate the case of the respondents, except the statements/report of the Investigating team. The other contention of the learned Government Pleader that the petitioners were involved in a case of theft which is categorised as a case of moral turpitude for which the punishment awarded to the petitioners by the competent authority cannot be found fault, is also not tenable, for the reasons that the petitioners were discharged from the charges levelled against them by the competent criminal Court and that there is no complaint by the owner of the property and there is no recovery of the property from the petitioners.

¶50

¶51

NV,J W.P.Nos.30674 of 2021 & batch

¶52

For the foregoing reasons and in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, all the Writ Petitions are allowed and the orders of dismissal passed by the 3^rd respondent and the orders of rejection of appeals passed by the 2^nd respondent are set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners into service forthwith with all consequential benefits. No order as to costs.

¶53

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending

¶54

shall stand closed.

¶55

____________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 6^th January, 2023 cbs

¶56

¶57

NV,J W.P.Nos.30674 of 2021 & batch

¶58

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶59

W.P.Nos. 30674, 30766 & 30857 of 2021

¶60

6^th January, 2023

¶61

cbs

A.Prabhakar v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Prabhakar v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Karri Soma Sunder Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri G.Purnachandra Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Poondla Srihari Babu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G Sambi Reddy Vs the State of Ap

Israel Raju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K. Tirumaleswararao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh