Allowed

E. Samuel John v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Jul 2025WP/1425/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A TSPF Assistant Commandant was punished with reduction in time-scale and treatment of suspension as not on duty, based on a teak-wood theft charge; he was later acquitted in the criminal case on identical charges. Holding the disciplinary charge unsustainable, the Court set aside the punishment orders and directed reconsideration including his DPC representation for promotion.

What did the court decide?

Impugned punishment orders set aside; respondents 1 & 2 directed to reconsider punishment and consider petitioner's 14.07.2025 representation for DPC nomination as Additional Commandant.

E. Samuel John Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

132521

¶2

i I' :

¶3

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

¶4

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FI'E

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶7

WRIT PET tTro N NO:1 425 0F 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

E. Samuel John. S/r c;;;;il;"i,f ndFl-:.:!::ii,ieo1'.".1.,R?x1,.r1,f,1.,?sh j.E:lxsl Station-B, 62.5 MW, Ramagundaln [4;;;;t, h,il;rpa,i District, pin. S05 208

¶10

AND

¶11

'I . The State of Telangana, Rep. bJ lts principal Secretary to Government, Home Deparrment. Tetanlana _Staie,y S $;;;i;;j. Hyderabad.

¶12

, :[B?:"J,8:ne^{6 r oi poritd, t"r,ii} ";;ti:i"^{F,oi"cii6iro."e,}

¶13

The Commandant_ll, TSpF Headquarters, Secunderabad, Telangana State.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue to a writ, order or direction and more particurarry one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the proceedings Rc. No. TSPF/A3/PR/1 7t2020.22 _ O.o. No. A_22t2022, dated 25 01.2022, issued by the 2nd respondent, awarded RTSp by 2 stages with cumurative effect for 2 years as punishabre under Rure g of rerangana state civir services (crassification, control and Appear) Rures, 1991 and the period spent under suspension of 509 days from 06.06.2019 F.N. ro 27.10.202'r A.N. is treated as Not on Duty and the period of unauthorized absence of 43 days from 23.4.2020 to 065.06.2020 AN is treated as LWp, which was confirmed by the 1st respondent, vide Memo No. 3890/Ser lll/A1 t 2022, dated 04.O7.2022, communicated vide Rc. No. SPF/A3/PR/17r202o-22, dated 15.07-2022, inspite of criminar proceedings are pending on the same charge in Crime No. 164 of 2020, dated 24.4.2020, as illegal, improper, arbitrary, unjust, irrational, contrary to the Telangana civil

¶16

Service (Classification, Control Appeal) Rules, 1991, violative of principles of natural^justice, violative of Arts. 14, 16, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and u nconstitutional, by holding that the initiation of entire process of enquiry conducted by the 3rd respondent is not in accordance of the Telangana Civil Service (Classification, Control Appeal) Rules, 1991, proving the Charges I and ll against the petitioner is void abinitio, null and void and nonest in the eye of law.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶18

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 suspend the operation of the Proceedings Rc. No. TSPF/A3/?R117 t2O2O-22 - O.o. No. A-2212022, daled 25.01 .2022, issued by the 2nd respondent, which was confirmed by the 1st respondent, vide Memo No. 3890/Ser.llltAl l 2022, dated 04.O7 .2022, communicated vide Rc. No. SPF/A3/pR/17 |ZO2O-22, dated 15.O7.2022, pending disposal of ihe writ petition, in the interest of justice pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH.VENKAT RAMAN Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

I-l

SN,J \w_1425 2023

HON'BLE^{MRS JUSTICESUREPALLI NANDA}

¶25

WRIT PET^TION o.L4250F2^o23

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Heard Sri Ch.Venkat^{Raman, learnedcounsel} appearing on behatf^{of the petitaoner and the learned} Assistant Government^{Pleader for Services (Home)} appearing on^{behalf of the respondents'}

¶28

2 The oetitroner^aooroached the Cou rt seekinq

¶29

Dra ver^{as under:}

¶30

"...to issue to a writ, order or^directionand more particularly^{one in the nature of Writ of} Mandamus, declaring^{that the ProceedingsRc' No'} TSPF/A3/PR/17/2020-22^{-O.o. No- A-22/2022,} dated 2S.0r.2022,^{issuedby the 2nd respondent,} awarded^{"RTSP by 2 stageswith cumulative effect} for 2^years" as^{punishable under Rule 9of} Telangana State Civil^{Services(Classification,} Control & Appeal)^{Rules, 1991 and the period spent} under suspension^{of 509 days from 06'06'2019} F.N. to 27.10.2021^{A.N. is treatedas "Not on Duty"} and the^period of^{unauthorizedabsenceof 43 days} from 23.q.2020 to 05.06.2020^{AN is treated as} "LWP". which was confirmed^by the l't^respondent, vide Memo No.3890/Ser.Ill/AL/2022,^dated 04.07.2022, communicated vide Rc.No.SPF/A3 IPR/17 /2020-22,^{dated15.07.2022,} inspite of criminal^{proceedingsare pendlngon the} same charge in Crime^{No. 164 of 2020, dated} 24.4.2020, as^illegal, improper,^{arbitrary,unjust,} irrational, contrary to the^{Telangana Civil Servlce} (Classification, Control Appeal)^{Rules, 1991,}

¶31

¶32

SN.J wp_1425 2023

¶33

violative of principles of natural justice, violative of Arts. 14, 16, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and unconstitutional, by holding that the initiation of entire process of enquiry conducted by the 3'' respondent is not in accordance of ihe Telangana Civil Service (Class ifica tion, Control Appeal) Rules, 1991, proving the Charges I and II against the petitioner is void abinitio, null and void and nonest in the eye of law, and to pass.,,

¶34

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner, while serving as Assistant Commandant, TSpF, KTPS, Palvoncha, was implicated in Crime No. 164 of 2O2O for alleged theft of teak wood, based on a complaint made by one M. PuruShotham Reddy. The petitioner was suspended on 06.06.2020, and a departmental enquiry was initiated and subsequenUy charges were framed, and the Enquiry Officer held them as proved. Despite the criminal case being under investigation and no charge sheet filed, the 2nd respondent vide order dated 25.01.2022 imposed a punishment of reduction of two stages in time scale for two years, treating the suspension period as "Not on Duty,, and absence as "LWp". The petitioner,s appeal was rejected vide order dated 04.07.2022 by the 1st respondent without valid reasons. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

I -'.-

SN.J wp 1425_2023

4. PERUSED TH RECO&D:

¶39

A) The releva nt Dortion of the i ouoned order dated 25.01.2 O22 vide Rc.No. PF/A3I PR/17 / 202022 f the resoonden No.2-The Direct r General of Poli e, Tel anoana State Pro ron Force, cund r dis to e erh

¶40

extracted hereun der:

¶41

e as therefore award ',RTSP bv 2 staoes with cumulative effect for 2 vears'as abl erR f s Rules 1991 The oeriod oent u nder su s Dension of (5O9) davs from 06.06 .2020 N o.2 ANi te n ot dutv' and the Deriod of unautho rized absence of (43) davs from 23.O4.2O2O AN to os.o 6.20 20 AN is treated as LwP'. It is certified that the procedure laid down in Rule 20 of TSCS (CC&A) Rutes, 1991, is scrupulously followed. Acknowledge the receipt of the proceed ing . "

¶42

B) The relevant oortion fthei mDuoned order dated o4.o7.20 2 vide Memo No.3 9OlSer.II IlALI 22 t nd ress o h resD ondent No.2-the Director Gener lofP lice, Telanqana Stat Protectio n Force, Secunde rabad. is extra cted hereunder:

SN,J wp 1425 2023

"The attention of the Director Gen era I Telang ana Special protection Force Secunderabad is invited to the reference 1 cited wherein Sri E.Samuel lohn Assista nt Commandant TSPF RTS Ramagunda m (formerly of TSpF KTPS Paloncha) had preferred his Appeal petitio n to the Gove rn m ent against the punishment of "Withholding of rncrement of pay for a period of one year with cum ulative effect,' imposed by the D isciplinary authority of TSSpF Secunderabad. 2. rdi I r m t a er ar ul m o Sri E .s m el J As ers n o m P RTS Ramagundam (formerly of TSPF, KTFS Paloncha) TSSPF with the remarks/records furnished by the Director General, Telangana Special Protection Force, Secunderaba d h r h e siti n f a f n e t er th tn e sl h e o u d to consider his request. _ 3. The Director General, Telangana Special Protection Force, Secunderabad, i; e;;.i;'. intimate the same ro the appticint, ,nt"i-piJp". acknowledgement.,, c) he rel va t o n e of h r ntN 2-T Di n a o P tc T an an ta ro ion F I n er ad a d 2 2 VI ER o F A P 7 o 2 u o h n rh ex a h ereu nder:

¶47

"T e r s n on A ea e ti n f Sri E Sa u hn A tc m n a t P RT a un m f erl T

..4"-'-.-*G-.

r//

SN,J w_1425²⁰²³

-1,

n h b ex rne b ver nt vi e re a retected the^{same,since itis notfeasiblefor} onst ratio er xis rul . A copy of the said Government^memois enclosed herewith. Acknowledge the^receipt of the Government^{memoimmediately."}

¶54

D) The co^u nter^{affidavit has been filedon behalfof} the resDon ents 1 to3an dinoa^rticular Da raoraoh .24 25 xt he nd

¶55

"24. In reply to^{paragraph 21 & 22, it is} denied that the^{appealof the Petitionerwas} rejected by the^{1"Respondent withoutassigning} any valid or substantial^{reasons.The Order} ate 25.O 22 e n o eals wi h con tio r ts r whit Petitioner and^{im DOSeStheDunishment} thou^qht fit bv the^{DisciDlina rv Auhoritv. The} 1^st Resoon ent th uqh Memo dated 04. 7.2022 has^{rihtlv dismissedthe Apeal} filed bv th Petiti ner by^{takinginto account} the facts and^{circumstancesof the case.Itis} denied that the^{punishment imposed on the} Petitioner is excessive^{and d isproportionate} '^{It is} submitted that th DUnis hment^imoosedon the Petitio errsD oortio nate to the^naure oft he Dos^{ition heldbvthe Pet tionerand} he c d o Petita oner.

¶56

In reply to^{paragraph 23 it is denled} that the order dated^{25.O1.2022 passedby the} 2nd Respondent and^{the Memo dated04.07.2022} issued by the 1"^{Respondent are in any manner} illegal or contrary to^{the provisionsof the service} rules or in violation of^{the principles of natural}

¶57

¶58

SN,J vvp_1425-202i

¶59

justice. In Iight of the above, it is humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition filed by the^petitioners and pass any other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.,,

¶60

DISCUSSION AND CONC LUSION:-

¶61

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner had submitted his detailed explanation dated 23.07.2020 to respondent No.2, requesting that the c.harges against him be dropped. However, the. impugned order vide Rc.No.TSPF/A3/PR/t7/2020-22 dated 25.Ot.2O2Z was passed against the petitioner by respondent No.2, imposing a cumulative punishment for a period oF two years under Rule 9 of the TSCS (CC&A) Rutes, 1991. Further, the suspension period of 509 days from 06.06.2020 (FN) to 27.70.2021 (AN) was treated as^,Not on Duty,, and the period of unauthorized absence of 43 days from 23.O4.2020 (AN) to 05.06.2020 (AN) was treated as Leave Without pay (LWP).

¶62

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that, aggrieved by the impugned order

¶63

¶64

SN,J w_t425_2023

¶65

dated 25.01.2022^passed by respondent No.2, the petitioner preferred an appeal to respondent No.1. However, respondent No.1, vide impugned^proceedings dated 04.07.2022, rejected the appeal without assigning any reasons, except stating that it is not feasible^for consideration as^per the existing^provisions, since there are no grounds to consider the petitioner's request. The said order was communicated to the petitioner through the impugned letter dated 15.07.2022 of the 2nd respondent, thereby upholding the cirder of respondent No.2 dated 25.01.2022.

¶66

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the alleged involvement of the^petitioner in the theft of teakwood stocked beside shed No.07 at KTPS, Palvoncha on 14.04.2020 in Cr.No.164/2020, under Section 380, 409 read with 34 IPC of Palvoncha Town Police Station was the very basis for initiating disciplinary^proceedings against the^petitioner and for^passing of the orders against the petitioner by the respondent No.1 & 2 herein which are impugned by the petitioner in the^present Writ Petition and that^judgment had been delivered on 30.06.2025 by the III

SN,J wp 1425 2023

Additional ludicial Magistrate oF First Ctass (Criminal Court for Agency Areas), Kothagudem, in C.C. No.10 of 2023 arising out of Crime No.164 of 2O2O of p.S. palvoncha Town, wherein the petitioner was acquitted.

¶71

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that, in view of the clear findings in favour of the petitioner in the judgment dated 30.06.2025 in C.C. No.10 of 2023 in Crime No.164 of 2O2O of p.S. palvoncha Town, on the file of the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Criminal Court for Agency Areas), Kothagudem, the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present Writ petition.

¶72

Learned Assistant Government pleader for Services (Home) appearing on behalf of the respondents places reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit, in particular, paragraph Nos.4, 5, B, 10, 16, and 24, and contends that the petitioner is not entiued to the rerief sought in the present writ petition, as the final report in the disciplinary proceedings held the petitioner as guitty of the charges revered against the petitioner vide Memorandum of

¶73

¶74

SN,J wp_1425 2023

¶75

charge, dated 10.07.2020 issued to the^petitioner, therefore, the writ^petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶76

A bare oerusal of the iudqment, dated 30.06.20 25 Dassed in C.C. o.1 o of 2023 arisino out of Cr.No.164 of 2O2O of P.S. Palvonch a^{Town indicates} h t the c uitted the r observin that no case was made out for convictin o the^accused rta tGat lt c in the absanra af n f and^alasr r,tiAattz.a and Cou further held that the orosecution failed to rove t ml ion of the he etiti and other a ccused bevond all^reasonable doubt, resultino in the acouittal of the oetitioner alono with ten others, a d therefore, this Court ooines that the disci ol i na rv oroceedinos initiated aoainst the iti ner whi h m ril ba Crime No.164 of 20 2O reoistered on 14.O^4.2O2O. and h tm u n d ated 1 2 d resoondent N o.2 and mechanicallv uoheld bv resoondent N o.1 on O4.O7.2022 and communicated to the oetitroner throuqh the imouoned letter dated I 5.07 ,.la) of t h 2nd a'tltatlt dent needs +.r ha

¶77

¶78

SN,J wp_1425_2023

¶79

econ ere th re on er I since b re oerusal of Memorand um of cha roe issu ed bv the ond N atn ition d d 1 .o7.2 o er to nd rac abov clea rl dica th it r tha crtm o.1 2 un rS cti n 38O O9r dwi 34 IP P on T n P lice tati n had een re ns th ner tha th de artm ntal roceedinos were initiated ao ain st the ron w hh ever nd a ul lof h Detata oner vrdeo rder, dated 3o.o6.2 O25 on the c urt of III Addition alJ dicial Maoi strate of First Class c nal ou r a ha em fter a reoular trial and on contest.

¶80

A bare perusal of the charges in the disciplinary proceedings indicates that they are identical to the charges in the criminal case C.C.No.10 of 2023 on the file of the III Additional ludicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem in Cr.No.16412020 of palvoncha Town police Station registered aga inst the petitioner.

SN,J w_l425-2023

The memorandum of charqe issued bv the resDondent o.2 aoainst the oetitaoner vide Rc. No. TSPFI A3ITRI L7 l2O2O. dated LO.O7.2O2O, farmino the followinq charqes is extracted hereunder:

¶85

"Article -1: That the said Sri E. Samuel John, Asst. Commandant, (U/s), TSPF, KTPS, Paloncha being a public servant committed criminal Breach of trust and involved in the theft of teak wood stocked beside Shed No. 07 at KTPS, Paloncha on 14.04.2020 in Cr. No. 764/2020, U/s 380, 409 r/w 34 IPC of Paloncha Town Police Station. With the said stolen teak wood, he got prepared wooden door and window frames for his house being constructed at Hyderabad city. Consequently, he was placed under suspension vide Rc. No. TSPF/A3IPR/17/2020, O.o. No. A- 14812020, dated 06.06.2020.

¶86

Article II: That the said Sri E. Samuel John, Asst. Commandant, (U/s), TSPF, KTPS, Paloncha became AWL w.e.f. on 23.04.2020 AN. Consequently, he was placed under suspension vide Rc. No. TSPF/A3/PR/17/2020, O.o. No. A- L4B/2020, dared 06.06. 2020. "

¶87

The charoe framed ao inst the Detitio er was admittedlv a borne on record, due to the alleoed involvement of^petitioner in a theft of teakwood k de sh 7ot PS P lv resultino in institutinq of a criminal case aoainst the Detitioner, t is Court opines that since the criminal

SN,J w¹⁴²⁵ 2023

a elf e s r a at s h tition r a f, n to beu ntenableincou rtofLaw, the verv basls of the

¶93

a e had b en an a o e o t. Th f re vt w fth ct th t n r as c f o t esa d a eb d rda o 6.2 2 c 1 2 2 c u o ln s t at the sa m e ca nnot be sust ined and the

¶94

SDon ent No.2 ts ound to re onsider the DU n ishm ent lmDo sed aqaln the Detitioner vide d lst nof th nd d d 5 1 o22 d ta ln a on t e e a ed o 6 2 c o o f o in fav r f the p ti r h f eof I I dt. Judi ial Mao istrateofFi rst Clas ,Kothaq ude m

¶95

L2, Th v n of th A c rt nfe d a d m t D v n r sl n h su tai b ti f nt n o e na e c n di c e n al I s d tm n r c e ln s e n s o a off s are e tra hereu nder: -

SN,J wp 1425_2023

A) The ADex Court, in the iudomen^{t of "G.M. Tank vs,} State f Guiarat & Ors.,"^{reoorted in (2O06)5 SCC} 446. dated 1o.O5.2006 hel that if the charqes in the disciolin arv oroceedinos are^{identical to thosein the} crimina I case, and t^{e emoloveehas been honourablv} itted h cflm the n rnutn he di ro R nt mec would not be iusti ed and the^{relevantoaroraoh} Nos.3O and 31 of the said^{order are e} racted hereu nd er:

¶100

3O. The^judgments relied on by^{the learned} counsel appearing for the^{respondentsare} distinguishable on^{facts and on law. In this case,} the d oartmental Droceedinos^an d^the criminal case are based on^identialand similar set of facts and the cha r e ina deoa rt ental case aq inst the aooellant^and +hec hr ]rafa re th riminal c u^rt re on and the same. It is true that^{the nature of charge} in the departmental^{proceedingsand inthe} criminal case is^grave. The^{nature of the case} launched against the appellant^{on the basis of} evidence and material collected^{againsthim during} enquiry and investigation^{and as reflected in the} charge-sheet, factors mentioned^{are one and the} same. In other words,^{charges,evidence,} witnesses and circumstances^{are one and the} same. In the present^{case, criminal and} departmental proceedings^{have already noticed or} granted on the same set of facts, namely, raid conducted at the appellant's^residence, recovery^of

\

SN,J !vp_1425 202-l

articles therefrom. The Investigating Officer Mr V.B. Raval and othe r departmen tal witnesses were the on ly witnesses examined by the enquiry officer who by relying u pon their state ment came to the conclusion that the charges were esta blished against the appel la nt. The sam e witnesses were examined in the criminal case and the criminal court on the exami nation came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the guilt allegedreasonable against doubt andthe acquitted a ppellant the beyond appellant anb v its judicial pronounce ment with the finding that the charge has not been proved. r r I

¶105

In our opinion, such facts and evide nce in th e departmen tal as well as crimr nal proceedings were the same without there beinI any iota of difference/ the appellant sho uld succeed. The distinction which is usuall y proved between the depart mental and criminal proceedings on the basis of the approach and burden of proof would not be applicable in the rnstant case. Though the finding recorded in the do mestic enquiry was found to. be valid by the courts below when there was an honourable acqulttal of the em ployee during the pendenc yof the proceedings challenging the dismissal the same req uires to be taken note of and the e st n n An o 9 3 c 7 L c L 1 iI t er a h a fi b h a a t s lo e

¶106

¶107

SN,J wp_1425 _2023

¶108

In he se c s VE inf vour fth iti r c N of 2 flsl ou of c o.1 4ot 20 ver n3 6.2 2 b he II Add l.Judicial Maoistra of Fir Cla (Cri ina! C urt r n Area Kot ud !so s no ed mer a ue rt onc es

¶109

B) The ADex Cou tn the iudom nt dated o 9 o tn 1 99 sc 67 in M.P ul h Vs ha G Min Ltd. n ul at

¶110

DaraoraD h^{No.34observed} s un er:

¶111

There is^{yet anotherreason for discardingthe} whole of the case^{of the respondents.As oointed out} ea r h mt tl a t a n r e sw re ase o identical set of^{facts,namely, 'the raid conducted at} the appellant's^{residence and recoverYof incriminating} a rticles therefrom.'^{The findlngs recordedbY the} Inq uiry Officer, a^{coPY of which has been Placed} before us, indicate^{that the charges framed aga in st} the appellant were^{sought to be proved bY Police} Officers and^{Panch witnesses, who had raided the} house of the appellant^{and had effected recovery'} They were the only^{wltnessesexaminedby the Inquiry} Officer and the Inquiry^{Officer, relying upon their} statements, came to^{the concluslonthat the charges} were established against^{the appellant'The same} witnesses were examined^{in the criminalcase but the} court, on a consideration^{of the entireevidence,came} to the conclusion that^{no searchwas conducted nor} was any recovery^{made from the residenceof the}

¶112

¶113

SN.J wp t425-2023

¶114

appellant h h se f e s u lon wa thr wn ut d ea lla t as tt d. In this situation therefore, where the appellant is acquitted by a .1udi cial pronounceme nt with the finding that the "raid and recovery,' at the residence of the appellant were not proved, it would be unjust, untair and rather oppressi ve to allow the findings recorded at the ex- parte depa rtmental proceedings, to sta n d.

¶115

n t t s arl b rV in th iud^qm ent dated 30.o6 .20 25 in c. .No.1O of 2023 tn Cr. o.1 4 2 of s al on a w on h it of he ou of II d lcr M a of lr ct ss Cri ln ur for A n ar s K a ud hat

¶116

h ro cu n a ail e e m ion of offens ebv the acc use bevond a ll reasonab le doubt.

¶117

c) T e ur e u m nt da d o4.12.2023 reDO rted in( 2 o24) 1SCc1 5 rn "Ramlal v s te of a s h n d th r ti la Daraqraoh Nos. 28 and 29 bserved as und r:

¶118

28 x r a I In the present ca SC the Appeltate tudge has recorded that Ext. P-3, the original mark sheet ca rries the date of birth as 21 -4-7972 and the same has also of been the proved prosecbvthu tio n.e witnesses examined on beh alf

SN,J wp_t425_2023

ta I ut nsi r h I t a uti n asid c d a ti rs ail Drove the cha rqe can o lv earrlve at after a f a f e d t en T c rt the su bsta nce oft hei do o ed n ent and not oo bv the formof XD s n used.

¶123

We are satisfied that the findings of the Appellate Judge in the criminal case clearly indicate rhat the charge agai nst the appellan t was not just, not proved" in fact the cha rge even stood "disproved" by the very prosecution evidence. As held by this Court,a fact is said to be^{,'disproved,,} when after consideri ng the matters before it the court either believe s^.that it does not exist or r A fact is said to be "not proved,, when it is neither ,'proved,, nor "disproved" ( see Viayee Singh v. State of U.P. lVijayee Singh v. State of Lt.p. (1990) 3 SCC 190 1990 SCC (Cri) 37Bl ). n h t a e rel va DA raq raD o. 3 of th I udo ent, da d 30.o5. 2o25 tn .c. o.1 o of o23 tn Cr.No. L64/20 20 P. s.P lvo cha Townont he file f e o II A di IM r e Fir s c m I u r Ko a u e erv d u er: - 23. _ According to the statement of PW.4 conression and seizure panchanama was

SN,J wp_t425 2023

k ffi.

conducted at police station. Whereas, as per the statements of pW.5 the same was conducted as KTPS V and VI sta ge gates. There is the contradiction in the statement of p.W4 and 5. Therefore, the court cannot place reliance in the evidence of pW .4 and 5,^who made contrad icto ty statements agaisnt each other on materi al pa rticulars. Moreover, the prosecution fa iled to prod uce the CCTV foot age to establish their version oF committi ng of ofrense by the accused Persons. The eviden ce of the prosecution became suspicious. it ]t of n h the accused Hen ce, No.1 to 11 are deserved to be acquitted.

¶128

T scourt tssati fiedt at tn the teethoft e ove f n tn c a ur f e to er heretn e IS li a o ln d e rd rs a s d h n b all wed to n a d he e n n N s & o n consider the DU nts hment DOse aqai ns the ti to I vid R N F A P 7 o o- 2 a e 1.2 t h 2nd es d d oco n d ra th s rV n n vo r ti n v ud t d

SN,J wp-l425_2023

2o 6.2025 I I Na lrl f tnr2 Cr.No.16412 20 ol P .s .Pa lvoncha Town on the fi^e of the Court of III Addl. Judicial Maqi rate of First Class^(Cri inal Court for Aoencv areas, Kothaqudem) and also the observa tions of the ADex Court in the iudqments^(refe rred to and extracte d above)

¶133

s D) The Divi on Bench iudoment of this Court in A.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. T.VenkataDati reDorte in 1999(1) A.P.L.J. 189( HC)- in W.A.No.124 of 1⁹ 99. dated O4.O2.t999 is extra cted hereunder:-

¶134

The writ petitioner was^prosecuted for alleged offence of murder of his wife. The death of the^{wife of} petitioner took place on 25th of February, 1996. The petitioner was working as Depot Controller at Srikalahasti Depot of the Andhra.Pradesh State^Road Transport Corporation (for short the^'R.T.C'). A prosecution was initiated against the petitioner after registration of crime. In the mean while the department initiated departmental^proceedings on the following cha rg e

¶135

"For having involved in a criminal case of alleged killing on 25-2-L996 which has resulted in framing criminal case against you as Crime No. 30 of 1996 under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C) by Muthyalareddypalli police station which amounts

¶136

¶137

SN,J wp 1425 2023

¶138

misconduct under Sec.29 (xxxi) of A.p.S.R.T.C. Employees Conduct Regulations, 1963.,,

¶139

The criminal prosecution initiated against the petitioner ultimately ended in acquittal in S]C.No. r of 1997 before the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupathi by judgment dated B-B-1997. The said acquittal has become final. However, the disciplinary authority in the departmenta l_enqu iry, upon completion of the enquiry passed orders on 28_ 11_ 1996 removing the petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred appeal against the said order. The same was dismissed. The review petition was also dismissed by the Regional Manager of the R.T.C. As a result, the petitioner F led the writ petition to challenge the order of his removal.

¶140

3: The learned Single Judge held that 1 the disciplinary authority was in error in holding the petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him in disciplinary proceedings in view of the ludgment of the Court. The petitioner-delinquent was entitjed to be cleared of the charge in disciplinary enquiry and accordingly allowed the writ petition.

¶141

Challenging the order of the learned sin gle Judge, the R.T.C. has filed this Writ Ap peal. We find no merit in the appeal inspite of the pe rsuasion of the learned ccunsel for the appellant-R T.C. We have already pointed out as to what cha rge was framed in the d isciplinary enquiry against th e petitioner. It has to be noted that the charge was not for the substantive act of having caused death of the wife. The charoe was on th t rw sln olv tn cri nal se d h sat v em t r It ln fr cnm al s r n un er s 2 t I.P C. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in course of the enquiry the petitioner had himself stated that death of his wife wa s result of his delinquen cy. It is argued that tn vtew of this admission of the petitioner the d isc iplin a ry a uth ority was justified in accepting the

¶142

¶143

SN,J w_t425_2023

¶144

same and Court cannot reappreciate the evidence.^We fail to understand as to how the statement^of petitioner was relevant in the instant case. The charoe was onlv for involvement in a criminal case re ultino in instatutin o of a criminal case aqainst the oetitioner. As soon as the criminal case itself was found to be untenabl^e n Court of law, the verv basis of the charoe as knocked out. The char o e should have been ouashed as and when the criminal case ended in^{acou itta l.} Involvem ent in a crimi al case which^{was not} tenable in Court of laW can hardlv^amou t^{to anv} delinq uencv. It cannot be disputed that^the disciplinary authority is entitled to^hold O^disciplinary enquiry on the same charge as is before a^Criminal Court because the scope of disciplinary enquiry and^a criminal trial ls different. But where the charge^{in the} discipllnary enquiry is necessarily dependent^{5 on the} result of the criminal case if the criminal^caseitselF ends in favour of the delinquent, the^{charge in the} disciplinary enquiry will become unsustainable^{one. [n} the facts and circumstances of^{the case having regard} to the charge framed against the^{petitioner and} having regard to the result of the criminal case,^we have no manner of doubt that the^{learnedsingle} Judge was right in allowing the^{petitioner's claim.}

¶145

In view of the fact the oetitione r had been acouitted in he criminal case, this Cou oDines that the charoe in the d sciolinarv oroceed inos will become unsustainable one.

¶146

t? A^{lrr ra} er sal of t^h r^A indi^{a=iac fhrt} t h consequential orders, dated O4.O7.2022 of the 2"d resDondent clear v indi cates that Aooellate Authoritv

¶147

¶148

SN,J wp 1425 2023

¶149

did not aDDlv its mind indeo endentlv and reiected the a r red he titi era tn e al of "withh oldino of increment of oa for a oeriod of ne rwt h mul lv ffec o a st h eti e r rre era I SPF Sec u ndera bad without ass!o ntno anv sln le rea son exceot statino there are n qrounds to consrder Detitioner's reouest.

¶150

1 Thi ou tn tha ua dici Auth tie n ha eof ird es ar boun to ud il an Dass detailed reasone orde an not act ech n cal! a sua I ann with ta I cati n of ind.

¶151

The Aoex Cou rt in th TU do ent reDortedin (20 10) 9 scc 496 in Kra nti Asso lates PrivateLimited n er v. a med an ther at ra 47 observedas und rl

¶152

Para 47 : Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:

¶153

(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative

¶154

¶155

SN,J wp_1425J023

¶156

decisions, it such decisions affect^anYone prejudicially.

¶157

(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

¶158

(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider^principle of iustice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

¶159

(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any^{* possible} arbitrary exercise^of iudicial and^{quasi-judicial} or even administrative^power.

¶160

(e) Reasons riassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on^{relevant grounds} and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

¶161

(t) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural iustice by^judicial, quasi'judicial and even^by ad m i n istrative bod ies.

¶162

(g) Reasons facilitate the process of^judicial review by superior courts.

¶163

(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional^governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of^judicial decisionmaking^justifying the principle that reason is the soul of^justice.

¶164

¶165

SN,J wp_)425 2023

¶166

(i) Judiciat or guasi-iudicial opinions these days can be ,,"n"n different as the iudges and authorities wno aetilt rer them. All these decisions serve one commo d e m o n s t ra te u r r". lo n : ::: :;: r":::::, il r rr' i, have been objectivety considered. This ,s important for sustainjustice derivery sysr"'lr1 '0"^{titigants' raith in the}

¶167

(j) rnsistence "n^{reason is a reguirement} for both iudicia, "o ( k ) r f a r r r, " ::: ::::::: ;::, :: :r::r:::rr", candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible deciding is faithfut ,o' 'o^{uno* whether the person} tr i n e o r p rece d e n t o r to p ri n ci p t e s r rl!,"r,llc (l) Reasons "^{r, r r r",} in " support of decisions must be cogen+ clear and su o r " ru b b er-s* - r r:::::,^,: ::::: ;t :;t":;: with a valid decision_making process. (m) It cannot bc doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of) t, p o w e rs. rra n s p a re n c y':: "; :: r;: :::rt; r" ::' : : ; makes the judges and cision-makers less prone to errors but also make ts them subiect b broader scrutiny. (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision _ ma king,

¶168

¶169

SN,J wp_1425_2023

¶170

(o) In all common law^{jurisdictions judgments} play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons, for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "due process".

¶171

A bare^perusal of the record indicates that oetitioner vide detailed reoresentation, dated L4,O7.2O25 addressed to the 2"d resoondent i.e rG n r Telan ana S ecia I Pr t F Budda Bhavan, Secunderabad, requestedlo eonstder n r' se foi nomination of t to DPC for Detitioner's further oromotion as Additional Commandant, since the oetitioner is^qoino to retire from service on 31.O8.2025 and the said reoresentation, dated 14.O7.2025. had been acknowledqed bv the office of the 2nd resDondent on 14.O7.2O25 itself.

¶172

T ln that the b e n reconsideration bv the respondents herein in view of the acquittal of the^petitioner vide verdict, dated 3 2 2 as din C.No.1O oJ 2023 in Crime

¶173

¶174

SN,.I wp 1425 2023

¶175

N .t64 ot2o20 ofP.s. Palvo ncha Tow n, on th file of th I dl. udi a! Ma str te of Firs ss Cri inal C rtf A n A K th ud in the ti ht oft hed rscuss ron and con clusion asa rrivedat para N os.5 to15of the Dresent i udom ent.

¶176

Ta kino tnto con ideratio

¶177

a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,

¶178

b) The submissions made by the tearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government pleader for Services (Home) appearing on behalf of the respondents,

¶179

c) The impugned order dated 2S.OL.ZOZ2 vide Rc.No.TSPF/Ag/pR/17 /2OZO-22 of the respondent No.2-The Director General of police, Telangana State Protection Force, Secunderabad issued to the petitioner herein (referred to and extracted above),

¶180

d) The impugned order dated O4.O7.2O22 vide Memo No.389O/Ser.IIt/AL/2O22 of the respondent

¶181

¶182

SN,J wp-1425-2023

¶183

No.1 addressed to the respondent No.2-the Director General of Police, Telangana State Protection Force, Secunderabad (referred to and extracted above),

¶184

e) The proceedings of the respondent No.2- The Director General of Police, Telangana State Protection Force, Secunderabad dated L5.O7.2022 vide R.C.No.SPF/A3I PR/L7 /2O2O-22 issued to the petitioner herein (referred to and extracted above),

¶185

f) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 and in particular, paragraph Nos.24 and 25 (referred to and extracted above),

¶186

e) The iudqment, dated 30.06.2025 in C.C.No.1O of 2O23 in Cr-N o. 164 t2O2O of P.S.Palvoncha Town on the file of the Court of III Addl.Judicial Maqistrate of I s c minal r c areas Kothaqudem]referred to and ertraeterl above)

¶187

¶188

SN..r wp_t425 2023

¶189

h) The judgments of the Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court(referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below:_

¶190

i) o 6 c 446 24 1 c 1 5 1 99 3S v 1 9 1 .P.L. 8 c v) (2o 10) 9 scc496

¶191

The Wri Pe t n ls all w d, trectinq re o de t 1& 2 ore r h nt h ent m o n o 2 2 th e en iti n the 2nd res Don den t, wh ich was confirmed bv d n 1 n04 o7 2 2 a d m nt dto ition I n1 o7 2 2b t ere o d t o.2 n I an ul n n a d o st er n the d n d 3 2 2 s d nc o o of o2 3. as well as the DE t ner's reD resentation dat 14.o7 .2 25 ddre ssed to the reSDondents e tn ekin tn t er' a t t e DP or u er r o sA diti n command nt stncet he DE t tion raS du reti re f serv ce on 3 1.08.20 25 dulv tak nq tnto n id r ti nt e b rV ti n in th ments of

¶192

¶193

SN,J wp.l125 2023

¶194

A e c u n d e Di o Ben hof h o d oa r n s o rt t o w t tn n d 2 w e s f I of f e era d o u e d n on etiti n r re ta d t dL4 o 5to t iti n r e H v r th r s a o r r toc

¶195

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ petition shall also stand closed.

¶196

so/- N. HANDRA SEKHAR D PUTY REGISTRAR

¶197

//TRUE COPYII

¶198

SECTION OFFTCER

¶199

One Fair Copy to the Hon,bte MRS JUSTTCE SU REPALLT NANDA (For Her Ladyships Xira p?r-"-. r)

¶200

¶201