Allowed

R.Sai Krishna v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Aug 2025WP/22999/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition by a former police officer seeking consequential benefits after his acquittal in a criminal case. The court directed the State of Andhra Pradesh to decide on the restoration of service and pension benefits within 90 days, noting the acquittal negated the basis for his removal.

What did the court decide?

Appropriate decision on consequential benefits to be taken by Respondent No. 3 within 90 days of the order.

R.Sai Krishna Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^348e ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 22999 OF 2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

R-Sai Krishna, S/o Late Mallaiah, Aged about 70 Years, OccDeputy Superintendent of Police (Dismissal), Rlo. 4-7-226193, Kamala Nagar, Vikarabad, Vikarabad District50l 101, T.G.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, Rep- by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Telangana State, Dr. B.R- Ambedkar, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 The Director General of Police, Telangana, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶14

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velgapudi, Amaravati, A.P.

¶15

The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri, Andhra Pradesh.

¶16

..RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under. Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the impugned action of the Respondents in not consideri'ng anO settling the entitled service^pension along with all attendant retiral benefits, regularization of suspension period from 28.04.2006 lo reinstatement period i.e., 30.10,2009 as duty period and^payment of pay and allowances for the suspension^period and further to treat the^period from the date of dismissal 09.06.2010 to till the date of retirement 30.06.2012 as Service rendered for counting the same for sanction of full service^pension duly passing appropriate proceedings treating the period of dismissal till the age of

¶18

superannuation as duty^period, as illegal, arbitrary^{and u n-constitutionaland} consequently direct the respondents to consider and settle^{the entitled service} pension along with all attendant Retiral benefits, regularization of suspension period from 28 04.2006 to reinstatement period i.e., 30,10.2009 as duty^period and payment of pay and allowances for the suspension^{period and furtherto} treat the^period from the date of dismissal^{09.06.2010to till the date of retirement} 30.06.2012 as Service^{rendered for countingthe same for sanction of full service} pension duly passing appropriate proceedings in that regard immediately.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.RAM REDDY

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: SRI M.KRISHNA, GP FOR SERVTCES (HOME)

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 & 4: SRI B.RAJESHWAR^REDDY, GP FOR AP STATE

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEP.SAMKOSHY} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE SUDDALACHALAPATHI RAO}

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.22999 OF 2025

¶25

ORDER,^{(per Hon'bleSri Justice P.Sam Koshy)}

¶26

. Heard Sri^{K.RamReddy, leamed counsel for the petitioner} and Sri^{M.Krishna, leamed Government Pleader for Services} (Home), appearing for^{respondentNos.l and 2and} Sri B.Rajeshwar^{Reddy, leamed Govemmentfor State of Andhra} Pradesh,^{appearingfor respondentNos.3and 4. Perused the record.}

¶27

lnstant^{is the writ petition which has beenfiled seekingfor} an appropriate^{directionto respondentNo.3 at the first instance} and further^{to respondent No.1 for taking an appropriate decision} on the claim^{of the petitioner for grant of consequentialreliefs in} the light of^{the judgment of the acquittal that has beenpassed} in favour^{of the petitionerin Criminal Appeal No.689of 2010} decided on06.12.2024.

¶28

The facts of^{the case, in briet are that the petitioner,while} working as^{the DeputySuperintendentof Police (StateCadre} Post) in^{the unified state of AndhraPradesh, was involvedin a} Criminal^{case undersection13(1Xd)R/w l3(2) of the Prevention}

of Comrption Act,1988 (for short "the Act") and the matter was put to trial in Criminal Court in vide C.C.No.3 of 2007. The Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases, Hyderabad, vide judgment dated 07.05.2010 found the charges against the petitioner to be proved and held guilty for the offences and he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years under each count. The said judgment of conviction, dated 07.05.2010, was subjected to challenge in an appeal before this Court in Criminal Appeat No.689 of 2010. The said appeal stood allowed vide^judgment dated 06.12.2024. The leamed Appellate Court granting the benefit ofdoubt to the petitioner has set aside the^judgment of conviction passed in C.C.No.3 of 2007, dated 07.05.2010, and acquitted him of all the charges under the Act

¶33

[n between, however, on the ground of conviction order dated 07.05.2010 passed in C.C.No.3 of 2007, the employer of the petitioner vide order dated 09.06.2010 dismissed him from service passing an order of removal. The order of removal from service was only on the basis of the conviction in aforesaid criminal case. The depanment as such has not initiated any disciplinary

¶34

¶35

¶36

proceedings against the^{petitioner whilepassingthe order of} removal from service dated 09.06.2010.^{Thebasisfor the removal} from service does not survive any^{further in the light of the} judgment of acquittal that has come in favour of the petitionerⁱⁿ the aforesaid Criminal^{Appeal vide order dated 06-12.2024.} Hence, the petitioner, subsequently,^{has made representationsto} both respondent No.3, first the State^{of Andhra Pradesh,as alsoto} respondent No.l, the State of^{Telanganavide representations} dated 21.0 I .2025 and I7 .06.2025^{for grant of consequentialrelief.} However, there does not seem^{to be any decision taken by two} respondents on these representations,^{whichhasbeen made by the} petitioner. This has led to filing^{of the present Writ Petition.} 5. The contentions of the^{leamed counselfor the petitioner is} that the very basis and^{foundationfor order of removalof service} is the^judgment passed^{in criminal case, but the sameno longer} exists any further in the light^{of order of acquittalby this Court.} As a natural consequPnce,^{the respondentauthorities oughtto} have a recalled the order^{of removal of service and should have} passed an appropriate order^{under the provisions of the} Fundamental Rules goveming^{the field to decide as to what the}

¶37

¶38

petitioner would be entitled for and it is this that has been prayed

¶39

lor by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition.

¶40

Leamed Govemment Pleader appearing for the respondentState of Andhra Pradesh contends that the petitioner both at the time of conviction and also at the time of removal from services, was working under the unified State of Andhra^pradesh, though he was posted in the State of Telangana, before he was sent on deputation to Vishakapatnam, from where he was removed from servtce.

¶41

It was also the contention that the petitioner, otherwise, seems to be a native of State of Telangana, Nonetheless, the leamed counsel representing both respondent Nos. I and 3 have fairly conceded to the fact that in the teeth of the judgment of acquittal, which has been passed in favour of the petitioner, an appropriate order needs to be passed. However, it also has to be verified, whether the judgment of acquittal in the aforesaid Criminal Appeal is uhder challenge before the Hon,ble Supreme Court or not.

¶42

Be that as it may, considering the aforesaid factual matrix of the case, where the judgment of conviction was the only basis

\ I

I I

for the order of the removal^{fromservice, dated 09.06.2010, and} now, that the^judgment of conviction passed in C.C.No.3^{of 2007,} dated 07.05.2010, rs no longer being in existence after^the judgment of acquittal, dated 06.12.2024, in Criminal Appeal No.689 of 2010, as a natural^{corollary and consequencethe} petitioner would be entitled for consequential^{benefits, unless and} until the^judgment of acquittal is^{set aside by the Hon'ble} Supreme Court.

¶47

In view of the same^{we do not intend to keepthe Writ} Petition pending rather ends^{ofjusticewould be met, if this Court} disposes the Writ Petition directing^{respondentNo.3 at the first} instance to take a decision as^{to the consequential order that needs} to be passed upon the^{petitioner being acquitted from trial in the} aforesaid Criminal Appeal^{and the order of removalfrom service} being solely on the^{groundofconviction.}

¶48

Let an appropriate decision^{be taken by respondentNo.3,} positively, within an euter limit of^{(90) daysfrom the date of} receipt of a copy of this order.^{The two representationsby the} petitioner filed before respondent Nos.l^{and 3 be also kept in} mind by the authorities while^{passing the consequential order.}

¶49

¶50

10.^{With the aforesaid observations,the Writ Petition is}

¶51

allowed.^{There shallbe no orderas to costs'}

¶52

Consequently,^{miscellaneouspetitions pending, if any, shall}

¶53

stand^closed.

¶54

SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL PUTY REGISTRAR

¶55

//TRUE COPY//

¶56

SECTION OFFTCER

¶57

<sup>To, gana State, Dr. B.R. 1 The Principal^{Secretary,HomeDepartment, Tel} Ambedkar,^{Telangana Secretariat.HyderabadStateof Telangana}

¶58

The^{Director General of Police, Telangana' Saifabad, Hyderabad'}

¶59

i The Principal^{Secretary,HomeDepartment,Secretariat, Velgapudi'} Amaravati,^{A.P., State of Andhra Pradesh'}

¶60

4' The^{Director General of Police'Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri,Andhra} Pradesh.

¶61

One^{CC to SRI K.RAM REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]}

¶62

^^{rwo CCs to SRI B.RAJESHWAR REDDY,GP FOR AP STATE, High Court} " for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶63

TfwoCCstoGPFORSERVICES(HOME),HighCourtfortheStateof Telangana^{at HYderabad} [OUT]

¶64

B. Two^{CD CoPies}

BSR BS

HIGH COURT

DATED:05 t08t2025

ORDER

WP.No.22999 of zOZs

R 1l-lE S r4
e o /4
(l
.)
J
-)
.' 2silfiM (1(-],
t I
.A
t { s<br>F4rcr{ED t

¶71

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, I WITHOUT COSTS

¶72

zbl 8 ?{

R.Sai Krishna v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Sai Krishna v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Jayaprakash Reddy Parvathareddy Vs Income Tax Officer

M.Aruna L/R of M. Sridhar, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabd

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Vs Myadam Kishan Rao Charitable Trust

M/S. Jaiprakash Gayatri Projects Ltd. (Jv) Vs the Commissioner of Central Excise

Nagasree Guggila Vs Assessment Unit