HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI…
Writ petition dismissed without costs; disciplinary authority directed to pass appropriate orders strictly as per law within six weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
fZA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 30271 OF 2023
Between:
S Raju, S/o Kotaiah Age 49 years, OCC- Reserve Inspector16th Battalions APSP Vishakhapatnam.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
4?
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 a writ, direction, order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 5, (1) Suspend the memorandum of Charge against the petitioner in Rc.No/4/PR/2021 dated 12-06-2021 and Enquiry report RC.No.70{12)/comp/2021-22 dated 12-09-2022, as illegal, arbitrary and against to principles of natural justice apart fromtheviolationofArticle14 of Constitution of India 2) And the impugned proceeding of Charge Rc.No/4/PR/2021 dated 12-06-2021 and Enquiry report RC.No.70(12)/comp/2021-22 dated 12-09-2022 as illegal arbitrary and set a-side the same.
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all the proceedings m issued by the 2nd respondent against to the petitioner in the Charge Rc.No/4/PR/2021dated12-06-2021 and also including Enquiry report RC.No.70(12)/comp/2021-22dated 1209- 2022, pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice.
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the Interim Orders dated 18.12.2023 passed in lA NO 1 of 2023 in W.P NO. 30271 of 2023 until further orders of pending disposal of the writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner(s) : SRI CH S V SURAJ
*>
4
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI R.S. MANIDHAR PINGALI, GP FOR SERVICES I
Counsel for the Respondents 2 to 5 ; NONE
The Court made the following: ORDER
APHC010586072023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3331] (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 30271/2023
Between:
S Raju
...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.CH S VSURAJ
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR SERVICES I
The Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard Sri Ch.S.V.Suraj, learned counsel for the petitioner,and Sri R.S.Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant GovernmentPleaderfor Services for Respondents.
- The petitioner. Reserve Inspector of 16 th Battalion APSP, Visakhapatnam, filed the above writ petition challenging the Charge Memo vide Rc.No.14/PR/2021 dated 12,06.2021 and the Inquiry report
Page 2 of 5
vide Rc.No.70(12)/Camp/2021-22 dated 12.09.2022, as illegal and arbitrary.
Page 3 of 5
i
the attention of this Court to the finding recorded in the inquiry report and the explanation submitted by the petitioner andwouldcontendthat the findings of the inquiry officer are without anyrecord.
- Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services would submit that in pursuance of the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority made the report available to the petitioner, for whichhesubmitted his explanation and now the disciplinary authority will pass orders. He would also submit that, as per the Rules, the PresentingOfficershould be senior enough and, have enough knowledge, to presentthecase before the inquiry authority. He would finally submit that the writ petition itself is not maintainable at this stage.
- Now, the point for consideration is:
Whether the writ petition, challenging the Charge Memo and the Inquiry Report, is maintainable?
- As seen from the material available on record, there is no dispute that Charge Memo (Ex.P1) dated 12.06.2021 wasissued to the petitioner, for which he submitted an explanation (Ex.P2). The Deputy Inspector General of Police-Ill, APSP Battalion, Kurnool appointed P.Ravi Sankar, Commandant, 2'^'' Battalion, APSP, Kurnool as an inquiry officer and appointed one K.Pydi Raju, Reserve Inspector, 2"^ Battalion, APSP, Kurnool as the PresentingOfficervide R.O.O.No.175/2021 (Rc.No.04/PR/2021) dated 12.06.2021 and vide R.O.O.No.175/2021 (Rc.No.04/PR/2021) dated 12.06.2021 respectively. The petitioner participated in the inquiry and crossexamined all the witnesses. The inquiry authority submitted its report to the disciplinary authority and thereafter, a copy of the report was
Page 4 of 5
made available to the petitioner and the petitioneralsosubmittedan explanation. The disciplinary authority is yet to decide on the report submitted by the inquiry officer.
- The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Presenting Officer is of the same rank and hence, the inquiry report has to be set aside falls to ground for reasons infra.
- The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (SER.C) Department dated 12.09.2022. Clause IV of theG.O.relevant is extracted herewith:
- The words employed in the G.O., ‘senior enough’ should not mean that the presenting officer should be a seniorinrankthanthe petitioner. The words senior enough and should have enough knowledge would manifest that the presenting officer is an experience officer and has enough knowledge for presentation before the inquiry authority. It does not mean that the presenting officershouldbesenior in rank to the charged officer. It is only the inquiry authority should be a senior ranked officer.
- The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that as per clause (iii) of G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 12.09.2022, the presenting officer should not be lower in rank than the charged officer,alsofallstothe ground, since clause (iii) of the G.O. deals with the inquiry officer, but
Page 5 of 5
not the Presenting Officer. Thus, this Court does not find any meritin the writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition isdismissed.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,shallstand
closed.
SD/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTIfefOFFICER
To,
Madhu
HIGH COURT
DATED:17/09/2024
ORDER
WP.No.30271 of 2023
•qf
'/x 0 7 OCT 2C2^ m)i
'A'2’ ' ^/i
^ . CurreiVt Section
DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS
1 issue framed by the court
Is a writ petition challenging a charge memo and inquiry report maintainable before the disciplinary authority decides?
3 provisions across 3 enactments
S Raju
The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Home Department
CH. Venkateswaralu, Deputy Inspector General of Police-III, APSP Battalion, Kurnool
N. Srinivasa Rao, Commandant, X Battalion APSP, Bhakarapet, Kadapa
P. Ravi Sankar, Commandant, 2nd Battalion APSP, Kurnool
K. Ram Babu, Asst Commandant / DSP Intelligence Security Wing, Mangalagiri, Amaravati
Subba Reddy Satti
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
