Pendem Upender Vs The State of Telangana

¶1

[³³⁰¹ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD ,^{(SpecialOriginal Jurisdiction)}

¶3

I

¶4

THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE I. PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK vrintr^perrroN No: 22408 oF 2o1e

¶6

Between:

¶7

Pendem Upender, S/o.P.Venkaiah, Aged about 30 years, Occ. Armed Reserve Constable(dismissed from service), R/o. Somavaram Villlage, Neredcherla Mandal, Suryapet District. Presently residing nearby Bus Stand, Nalgonda.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶11

2 The Director GenJral of Police, Telangana State, Hyderabad.

¶12

3 The Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda Nalgonda District.

¶13

R3 C.T is amenddd as per C.0 dt0210912022 in lA 01/2020.

¶14

4 The Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Special Branch, Nalgonda and The Enquiry Office(Sri.G.Ramesh).

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated iA the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue order or direction more particularly one in the Writ of liilandamus, to set aside the proceddings C.No.02lA6-1lOEl2O19(1437) dated 25-9-2019 of the 3rd respondent by holding the same unjust, unreasonable, illegal, contrary to the Rule 20 of CCA Rules^'1991 and violation of^principles of natural^justice and contrary to the settldd^principles of the departmental^proceedings and consequently direct the I respondent to reinstate the^petitioner in service with i consequential and attendants benefits.

¶17

I I

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶19

Petition unde. S ion 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 proceedings C.No.02lA6-11OE12019 dated 25-9-2019 of the 3rd respondent.

¶20

Counsel for the Petiti oner: SRI UDAY KUMAR KUKKADAPU I i Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

a

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{PULLA KARTHIK} WRIT PETITION No.224O8 OF 2019

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Writ Petition, under Article^{226 of the Constitution}

¶26

of India, is filed seeking^{the following relief:}

¶27

"...to issue order^or direction^{moreparticularly one in the Writ} of Mandamus to set aside the^{proceedingsC.No.O2} /A6-l /OE/2019 (1437) dated 25-9-2019 of the 3'd respondent by holding^{the same} unjust, unreasonable, illegal, contrary^{to the Rule 20 of CCA Rules} 1991 and viotation of^{principlesof natural justiceandcontraryto the} settled^principles of the departmental^{proceedings and consequently} direct the respondent to reinstate^{the petitionerin service with} consequential and attendants^{benefits and to pass...'}

¶28

2 Heard Sri K.Uday Kumar, learned^{counsel for the} petitioner and learned Government^Pleader for^{Homefor the} respondents. Perused the^{materialon record.}

¶29

Learned counsel for the^{petitioner submits that the} petitioner was recruited as Armed^{Reserve Police Constable} uide proceedings, dated 18.10.2013^{and after completion of} training, he was posted at District^{ArmedReserve, Nalgonda.} While things stood thus, a case in Crime^{No.96of 2019was} registered against the petitioner on the file^{of the Station} House Officer, Nalgonda II Town Police Station,^Nalgonda. Basing on the sarne,^{respondent No.3 placed the petitioner} under suspension uide^{proceedings, dated 12.O4.2019.}

I I

I

2

PK,J wp224oa_2o19

Subsequentlv, the^{respondents issuedArticleof Charge, dated} 17.O4.2OI9, for which, the^{petitioner submittedhis detailed} explanation.

¶35

(ii) Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner received inquiry report, dated 21.08.2019^along with Memorandum, dated 23.08.2019, holding that^the charge leveled against the^petitioner as 'proved'. In fact,^no inquiry was conducted in the^presence of the^{petitioner and} he did not receive any notice regarding the^schedule of^the inquiry. Hou'ever, upon perusal of inquiry report, dated 21.O8.2O19, it is clear that the respondents have not followed the steps lard down under Rule 20 of the Telangana Civil Services^{(Classification,} Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991,^(for short, 'the Rules'), 1991. Respondent No.4 appears to have relied on the statements of the witnesses examined by him. But these u,itnesses were not examined in the presence of the petitioner, as the inquiry was conducted in the absence of the petitioner. Therefore, the inquiry report, dated 21.08.2019, is not valid in the eyes of law. Basing on the same, respondent No.3, uide impugned proceedings, dated 25.09.2019, dismissed the petitioner from service by treating his

¶36

I

¶37

PK,J wp_22408 2019

¶38

suspension period from 13.O4.2019 to 25.09.2019 as 'not on duff'. It is further submitted that the Inquiry Officer is supposed to examine the charged employee. Respondent No.3 simply relied upon the inquiry report, dated 2i.08.2019, on the basis of the inquiry conducted in the absence of the petitioner and imposed the punishment. Therefore, the action of respondent No.3 in issuing impugned proceedings, dated 25.O9 .2019 , to the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary.

¶39

(iii) Learned counsel further submits that the disciplinary authority has not appointed any Presenting Officer. Moreover, as per Rule 2O(5)(c) of the Rules, the disciplinary authority shall appoint a Presenting Olficer. Therefore, learned counsel prays this Court to set aside the impugned proceedings, dated 25.09.2019. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order, dated O5.O9 .2024 , passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.38524 of 2013.

¶40

Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Home submits that one G.V.Ramana Reddy, former Inspector of Police, Specia-l Brach, Nalgonda, lodged a complaint against

4

PK,J Wp-22404_2O19

I

)

tlre petitioner uide Crime No.96 of 2019 on the file of the Station House Officer, Nalgonda II Town Police Station, Nalgonda. f3asing on the same, the petitioner was suspended from service uide proceedings, dated I2.O4.2OI9 Later, an \1'as Article of charge, uide proceedings, dated 17.04.2019, served on the petitioner and as the petitioner failed to submit his written explanation, an oral inquiry was ordered appointing [)eputy Superintendent of Police, DSB, Nalgonda, as Inquiry Authority uide proceedings, dated 10.05.2019, who submitted hr s report uide letter, dated 2 I .08.20 19 holding the charge against the petitioner AS 'proved'. The same was supplied to the petitioner on 23.08.2019 calling for his representation. il any. The petitioner has acknowledged the receipt of thr: memo on O4.09.2019 but failed to submit his representatlon

¶46

(ii) It is further submitted that the petilioner has attended the oral inquiry on all the hearings, prosecution witnesses r.r'e re also examined and the petitioner has crossexamined PW4. However, he did not prefer to cross-examine other witnesses. Further, as per the settled law, there is no bar to proceed against government servart departmentally,

¶47

5

¶48

PK,J wp 224O4 2Ol9

¶49

even if^{criminal proceedings on the same set of chargesare} pending. The^{Inquiry Officer has conducted the inquiry} according^{tothe proceduredefined under the Rules.} Therefore, basing^{on the e'{idence adduce{during the oral} inquiry,^{the disciplinary authority has rightly awarded the} punishment^{to the petitioner'Hence, the contentionsraised} by the^{petitionerare baseless,false and misleading.} Therefore,^{learned counsel prays this Court to dismissthe} Writ Petition.

¶50

Having considered the rival^{submissionsmade by} learned^{counselfor the respectiveparties and on perusal of} record, this^{Court is of the view that while the petitionerwas} working as^{Armed Reserve Police Constable, he was} suspended^{lrom service uide proceedings, dated 12.04.2019,} in connection^{with the criminalcase uide Crime No.96 of 2019} tls 419 and^42Oof Indian^{Penal Code,186O,orl the file of the} Station House Officer, Nalgonda II^{Town PoliceStation,} Nalgonda.^{Consequently,Articles of charge rzdeproceedings} in C.No.02l^{A6-llOE/201'9(14371, dated 17.04.2019, was} issued to the^{petitioner,whereinArticle-I reads as follows:}

¶51

6

¶52

PK,J Wp 224oa_2019

¶53

"Si P. tJpender,^{ARPC3975 has exhibited gross neglect} of duty and misconduct^{bg committingacts of ciminol} conspiracg, impersonation and^{cheatingagainstPolice} Recntitment Board in Phgsical^{Effi.ciencg Test alorLgutith} tuto otluzrs to facilitate^{his goungerbrother} Si^Pendem Sathish, Reg.No.1O4213B^{to qualifu} for^{recruitment to the} post of SCf S/^piuil) and^SCT PC^(Ciuil) on^{23.02.2O19 at} Mekala Abhinau Stadium,^{Nalgonda,and got himself} inuolued in Cr.No.96/2019 u/s^{419, 42O, 468, 471 IPC &} Sec. 3 & 4 of^{A.P. F\tblic Examinotion(Preuentionof} Malpractices) Act of Nalgonda^{II (T) PS."}

¶54

6 The petitioner has submitted his explanation to^the above article of charge.^Further, an Inquiry Officer was appointed, who submitted his^{report, dated21.08.2019} holding the charge against the^petitioner S 'proved'. Consequently, respondent No.3, ulde^{proceedings,dated} 25.09.2019, dismissed the^{petitioner from service by treating} his suspension^period from^{13.O4.2019to 25.O9.2019 as 'not} on duty'

¶55

The main contention of the^petitioner is that Rule 20(5)(c) of the CCA Rules stipulates that when the disciplinary a authorit5z conducts an inquiry into charges against government. servant or appoints an inquiry authority for this purpose, it may appoint :l government servant or a legal practitioner as the "Presenting Oflicer" to present the case in support of the charges. Further, the Division Bench of this

7

PK,J Wp 22408 2Ol9

/

I

\

I

Court in W.P.No.38524 of 2013, dated 05.09.2024, has categorically held that appointing a^Presenting Officer^isa mandatory requirement under Rule 20(5)(c) of the Rules. Admittedly, no Presenting Officer was appointed as required under the Rules.

¶63

Therefore, having regard to the facts ald circumstances of the case and also the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.38524 of 2013, dated O5.09.2024, the impugned^proceedings, dated 25.09.2019 are liable to be set aside. Hou,ever, since the crimina-l case registered against the petitioner uide Crime No.96 of 2019 on the file of the Station House Officer, Nalgonda Ii Town Poiice Station, Nalgonda, on the same set of facts as that of departmental proceedings, is still pending, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to remit back the case to the respondents for conducting fresh inquiry after conclusion of criminal proceedings.

¶64

9, Accordingiy, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the proceedings C.No.02lA6-l/OE/2019(1437l,, dated 25.09.2019, issued by respondent No.3 and the matter is

8

PK,J wp 224oa-2o19

C

remitted back to the respondents for conducting inquiry

¶69

afresh, strictlv in accordance with the Rules.

¶70

Miscellane ous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to

¶71

costs.

¶72

/

¶73

That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. Witness THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJAY PAUL, on this Thursday, The Thirteenth Day Of February Two Thousand^{And Twenty} Five

¶74

SD/- A. SRINIVAS REDDY ASS STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// t'.SE,CTION OFFICER

¶75

To,

¶76