Partly allowed

Ravi Rama rao v. The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City

Telangana HC23 Sept 2013WP/17942/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partially allowed a writ petition filed by a police constable seeking relief against punishment of reduction of pay scale. The Court modified the punishment to revision of pay scale without cumulative effect, considering the enquiry officer had initially found charges unproved and the petitioner's efforts to serve summons on anti-social elements.

What did the court decide?

Punishment of revision of pay scale by two stages without cumulative effect substituted for reduction by two increments with cumulative effect.

Ravi Rama rao Vs The Commissioner of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

AND

¶3

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDARAM

¶4

WRIT PETITION No.17942 OF 2006

¶5

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)

¶6

The petitioner is working as Constable in the Traffic Police Station, Vijayawada. A charge memo was issued to him on 10-061994 alleging that on 03-04-1994, he consumed alcohol while on duty and was having lunch with anti-social elements. The petitioner submitted an explanation denying the charges. Not satisfied with the explanation, the Commissioner of Police – 1^st respondent, appointed the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Head Quarters, Vijayawada, as an enquiry officer. Through his report dated 30-06-1994, the enquiry officer held that charges framed against the petitioner are not proved. However, the 1^st respondent issued a show cause notice dated 06-081994 requiring the petitioner to explain as to why the charges be, not taken, as proved. The petitioner submitted his explanation for the same. Not satisfied with that, the 1^st respondent issued an order dated 09-10-1994 imposing punishment of reduction of pay scale by two increments with cumulative effect. The period of suspension was directed to be treated as “not on duty.” The appeal and the revision preferred by the petitioner before the concerned authorities were rejected. Thereupon, he filed

¶7

O.A. No.3165 of 1999 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short “Tribunal”). The O.A. was dismissed on 11-022004.

¶8

Hence, this writ petition.

¶9

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶10

Government Pleader for Services – I for the respondents.

¶11

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has consumed alcohol/beer while on duty, on 03-04-1994, and on the same day, he was found taking lunch with anti-social elements. The plea of the petitioner was that he was making an effort to serve summons upon the persons, who were prescribed as anti-social elements and that he did not consume any alcohol at all. An elaborate enquiry resembling a criminal trial was conducted by the enquiry officer – Assistant Commissioner of Police, who was appointed as enquiry officer. After discussing the evidence of each and every witness, he recorded a finding that the charge was not proved.

¶12

4. The 1^st respondent issued a show cause notice proposing to differ with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer. The basis was that PWs.8 and 9, who are the employees of a hotel, have turned hostile and their evidence cannot constitute the basis. There is a clear fallacy in this regard. He was mostly impressed by the evidence of the then

¶13

Sub Inspector of Police and other Constables, who are direct witnesses, and the medical report. The fact that the medical officer was not examined would have its own impact. Assuming that the charges against the petitioner are proved, they do not warrant a punishment of revision of pay scale for the rest of the career of the petitioner. It is not, as if, the petitioner was found resorting to any misbehaviour, with the general public or officials. The plea that he was making efforts to serve summons on the persons branded as antisocial elements cannot be brushed aside totally. All the same, the petitioner was required to be careful while discharging his duties and to ensure that he is not accessible to the anti-social elements.

¶14

5. We are of the view that the punishment of revision of pay scale as imposed by the 1^st respondent, but without cumulative effect, would meet the ends of justice.

¶15

6. Hence, the Writ Petition is partly allowed, and modified the order of punishment passed by the 1^st respondent to the one of revision of pay scale by two stages without cumulative effect. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

7. The Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this writ petition shall stand disposed of.

¶17

_______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶18

_______________________ CHALLA KODANDARAM, J September 23, 2013. PV

Ravi Rama rao v. The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Rama rao v. The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Lakhani Steel Industries Vs The Commissioner of Central Excise

A.Ravinder Reddy Vs Government of a.P., rep by its Prinicpal Secretary

Dr. B. Vidya Sagar Vs Dr. P. Venkateshwarlu

The Engineer-in-Chief, Panchayat Raj, Vs K. Shyam Sunder

Dr. v. Varalakshamma, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by

Mrs.Haripuri Uma Rani, W/o.D.Srinivas Vs Principal Chief Conservator of Forests