Allowed

K.v.R.Mohan Rao, Nalgonda District v. Prl Secy, Home Dept, Hyderabad and 2 Others

Telangana HC4 Oct 2023WP/6035/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the dismissal order and the Administrative Tribunal order. The Court held the punishment was disproportionate because the accomplice was cleared and the State failed to consider the Tribunal report.

What did the court decide?

The dismissal order dated 01.04.2013 and the Tribunal order dated 28.11.2014 are set aside; the petitioner is reinstated with all consequential benefits.

K.v.R.Mohan Rao, Nalgonda District Vs Prl… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³¹⁸ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 6035 OF 2016

¶7

Between:

¶8

K.V.R.Mohan Rao, S/o: K.S.Prakash Rao, Aged about 49 years, Ex PC 620 of Haliya P.S., (formerly Peddavoora P.S.), Nalgonda District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary to Government Home Department Secretariat, Hyderabad - 5OO 022.

¶12

2 The Director General of Police, A,P., Lakadi-kapool, Hyderabad - 500004

¶13

3 The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Purana Haveli, Hyderabad, Represented by its Registrar.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed theiewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or order more particularly in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI calling for the records in O.A.No.5519 of 2013, on the file of A. P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and set aside the G.O.Ms.No.89, Home (SCA) Dept dt.01.04.2013 as well as the ,udgment dated 28.1 1.2014, passed in O.A.No.55'19 ot 2013, on the file of A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad.

¶16

Amended as per C.O Dt. 18-2-16 WPMP No.36182 ot 2015

i l I {

l.A. NO: 2 OF

P. NO: 7674 OF 2016)

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filedⁱⁿ support of the^petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of orders dated 28.1 1.2014 passed in O.A.No.55'19 of 20'13, on the file of^A. P.Administrative Tribunal, pending di:;posal of the main Writ Petition

¶21

Counsel for the^Petitioner: SRI TATINENI BENERJEE

¶22

Counsel for the^Respondent No.1 and 2: GP FOR HOME

¶23

Counsel^{for the Respondent No.3:} NONE APPEARED

¶24

The Court made^{the following:} ORDER

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE ABHINAND^{I(I'IMARSIIAVILI} AND

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE NAI,IAVARAPU RAJESIIWAR RAO

¶27

Writ Petition No.6O35 of 2OL6

¶28

ORDER : (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abltinaid Kumat Shauili)

¶29

This Writ Petition is frled aggrieved by the order, dated 28.11.2014, passed in O.A.No.55l9 of 2Ol3 by the Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, the Tribunal').

¶30

Heard Sri T. Benerjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos. t and2.

¶31

karned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was working as a Police Constable at Peddavoora Police Station of Nalgonda District. Learned counsel further contended that on 11.O5.2OO7, while the petitioner was discharging his duties, the Police o[ Peddavoora seized a lorry in the early hours of the day allegng that the lorry owner was transporting sand illegally. However, it was^alleged

¶32

¶33

¶34

AKS,,J & RRN,] !p 6035 2016

¶35

that the petitioner and the Sub-Inspector of Police^by accepting bribe of Rs.S,OOO/- frorn the lorry owner, released the said lorry. The lorry owner^{has given a} complaint to ACB and the ACB has conduct.ed a trap at the instance of the lorry owner and ets it^was established tleat the^petitioner acceptecl bribe^of Rs.S,OOO/- at the instance of the Sub-Inspector^of Police, the case of the petitioner as well as the case^of the Sub-lnspector of Police were referrecl to^the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings. The T'ribunal^for Disciplinary Proceedings has numbered the^{case of the} petitioner as T.E.C.No.7 of 2OO9 and the <:ase of^the Sub-lnspector of Police was numbered^{as T.lD.C.No.6 of} 2009. The Tribunal for Disciplinaqz Procet:dings has submitted two separate reports in both cases^on 11.O4.2O11 . The Tribunal for Disciplinar5r Proceedings has strangely held that the charges levelled etgainst^the petitioner are proved. However, in respect o[ the SubInspector of Police, a hnding was recordecl that the charges levelled against him could not be proved. Though identical charges were levelled against the

¶36

¶37

AKS,] & RRN, ,, wp r)O35 -10 I a)

¶38

¶39

petitioner as well as the Sub-Inspector^{ol Police, the} case of the petitioner stands^{on different footing, as it} was alleged by the de facto complainant^{that the} petitioner has accepted the bribe of^{Rs.S,0OO/- on} beha-lf of the Sub-lnspector^{of Police. When the charges} levelled against the Sub-Inspector^{of Police itself could} not be proved, the question of holding^{that the charges} levelled against the petitioner^{would not arise-Based} upon the report of the Tribunal for^Disciplinary Proceedings, the State Government has^irnposed punishment of dismissal from service on the^petitioner uide G.O.Ms.No.S9 dated 01.04.2013^{and the Sub-} Inspector of Police was let off without^imposingany punishment.

¶40

Learned counsel for the^{petitionerfi.rrther} contended that the State Government^{has passcda} mechanical order and no reasons^{were set out in the} said dismissal order, except stating^thatthe explanation submitted by the^petitioner is not convincing and the Government has^{decided to irnpose}

¶41

\F_-!iP-_EFEH \ _ :^llN? \ :j,?^/- ' 4 AKS,J & RRN,J1.. i::.^'' \ p 6035 -1016 \

¶42

punishmenl o[ dismissal from service. The explanation submitted by the petitioner was not taken into account. The petitioner has pointed out to the State Government in the explanation to the show cause notice, that^.the Sub-Inspector of Police wit s let off and the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings has submitted the report holding that the cha-rges levelled against the Sub-lnspector of Police cc,uld not be proved. When the cha-rge of acceptan()e of illegal gratification by the Sub-Inspector of Police is not proved, the Tribunal for Disciplinar5r Procer:dings could not have held the charge levelled against.the petitioner as proved, more so when the allegation levt:lled against the petilioner was that he has accepted bribe on behalf of the Sub-lnspector of Police. When the Sutb-Inspector of Police is let off, automatically, the Tribunal should have given a finding that the charge level,led against the petitioner could not be proved.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the punishment of disrnissal from

¶44

ffi

¶45

AKS,J & RRN,J $p 6035 20 16

¶46

¶47

servlce rs shockingly disproportionate to the^charge levelled against the^petitioner. Aggrieved by the dismissal order dated O1.04.2013, the petitioner has approached the Tribunal by filing subject O.A.No.SS 19 of 2013 and the Tribunal utde order dated 28.ll.2ol4 was pleased to dismiss the subject O.A. without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the s€une, the present writ petition is liled. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the order dated 2a.ll.2OI4 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.5519 of 2Ol3 and a-lso the order passed by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.89, dated Ol.O4.2OL3, and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with atl consequential benefits.

¶48

Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 had contended that as the charges levelled against the petitioner was held to be proved by the Tribunal for Disciplinar5r Proceedings, the State Government was justifred in imposing

¶49

¶50

AKs,J & RRN,] \vp 6035_2016

¶51

¶52

punishment of dismissal from service, for the proven misconduct by the Tribunal for Disciplinary proceedings. Learned Special Government Pleader further contended that the charge levelled against the petitioner is that he has illegally accepted bribe of Rs.S,OOO/-, which is a serious charge and when once the charge of illegal gratifrcation 1S proved by the Tribuna-l for Disciplinary Proceedings, the prunishment of dismissal from service is proportionate to the cha5ge levelled against the petitioner. Therefore, the Tribunal was justihed in dismissing the subject O.A, There are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶53

This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, is of the^,:onsidered view that the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, having examined the case of the petitioner as well as the Sub-lnspector of Police, has given two different reports on the same day i.e., on ll.O4.2Ol1 and let off the Sub-lnspector of Police by recording a hnding tJ..at

¶54

AKs,J & RRN,J wp 6035 20 16

¶55

¶56

-7

¶57

the charge of acceptance of illegal^{gratifrcation by the} Sub-Inspector of Police could not be^{proved and that} the charge levelled against the petitioner that he has accepted illegal gratifrcation of Rs.5,O00/- at the instance of the Sub-Inspector of Police is proved.^When the charge levelled against ttre Sub-lnspector of Police could not be proved, the Tribunal could not have^come to a conclusion that the petitioner has accepted bribe of Rs.S,OOO /- at the instance of the Sub-Inspector of Police. This particular fact was not considered by^the State Government and the State Government has^also not considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner and passed a. non-speaking order stating that the explanation submitted by the^{petitioneris not} convincing and hence, the State Government has^come to a conclusion to impose punishment of dismissal from service. Therefore, by taking the totality of the circumstances into account, the Tribunal ought^to have interfered with the punishment of dismissal from service, as admittedly, in an identical set of charge, the Sub-Inspector of Police was let off by the Tribunal for

¶58

AKS,J & RRN,J \r,p 6035 20 16

¶59

¶60

Disciplinary Proceedings. Further, when the SubInspector of Police was let off, the question of holding that the petitioner accepted the bribe at the instance o[ the Sub-lnspector of Police would not arise. Therefore, the order passed by the Administrative^'lribunal in O.A.No.5519 of 2Ol3 dated 28.11.2014 and the order passed by the State Government in G.tf.Ms.No.89 dated 01.04.2013 are liable to be set aside, as the State Government failed to take into consideration the fact that the Sub-lnspector of Police was let off and the allegation levelled against the petitioner ls that he accepted illegal gratihcation at the instance of the SubInspector of Police. Further, admittedly, the petitioner has put in 25 years of service and punishment of dismissa-l from service imposed on the petitioner IS shockingly disproportionate to the charge levelled against him. On this ground also, the order of dismissal dated 01.04.2013, and the impugned order dated 28.11.2OL4, are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order of dismissal is set aside and the writ petition is allowed with all consequential benefits.

¶61

¶62

AKS,j & RRN,I wp 6035 20 16

¶63

¶64

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order dated 28.1I.2014, passed by the Tribunal and the order dated O1.04.2013, passed by the State Government are set aside. It is made clear that the petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits. No costs.

¶65

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending it any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶66

That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above.

¶67

\ Witness THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE, on this Wednesday, the Fourth Day of October Two Thousand and Twenty Three.

¶68

SD/. T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGIgTRAR ./ SECTION OFFICER

¶69

//TRUE COPY//

¶70

To,

¶71

'1. The Principal Secretary to Govemment Home Department Secretariat, The State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad - 5OO O22.

¶72

The Director General of Police, A.P., Lakadi-ka-pool, Hyderabad - 500004. 3. The Registrar, The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Purana Haveli, Hyderabad,.

¶73

One CC to Sri Tatineni Benerjee, Advocate [OPUC]

¶74

Two CCs to GP for Home, Hlgh Court for the State of Telangana, At Hyderabad [OUT]

¶75

Two CD Copies

TJ GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:0411012023

ORDER

WP.No.6035 of 2016

STAr€
{ 6E
v
q
c I J [E[ ?[2x .lt
rl
i^ *a
I I
\ t OES alCt'il

¶82

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

K.v.R.Mohan Rao, Nalgonda District v. Prl Secy, Home Dept, Hyderabad and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.v.R.Mohan Rao, Nalgonda District v. Prl Secy, Home Dept, Hyderabad and 2 Others

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

K. Sammaiah, Vs Dr Jitender IPS

P. Lokasvi Vs Dr. S. Sandhya

T. Dhangopal Rao Vs Sri. Ravi Gupta, IPS

J.Posetty Vs The. State of Telangana

Government of Telangana Vs K. Ilaiah

R. Vijaya Lakshmi Vs The District Prohibition and Excise officer