Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
B Suneeth Kumar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 13 December, 2022
1
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION (A.T) No.803 of 2021
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed, seeking the following relief:
".....to issue a Writ, Order or direction to call for the records relating to Proceedings in C.No. 26/C2/PR/RO/2009 ROO No. 321/2011, dated 12.10.2011 of the 3rd respondent in imposing a punishment of PPI for 2 years with cumulative effect on his future increments and pension and proceedings in D.Dis.No.06/IGP/South Zone/RR- II/2012, dated 19.04.2012 of the 2nd respondent and the Government Memo No. 25490/Ser.II/A1/2015, dated 03.08.2015 passed in Revision and as communicated vide Proceedings C.No.1107/A6/2015, dated 14.10.2015 of the 4th respondent and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the rules and discriminatory as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to accord all consequential benefits and pass such other orders."
2. Heard Mr. Harinadha Reddy Somagutta, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader, Services-I for the respondents.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is working as S.I of Police in Anantapuramu District. While he was working at Kadiri, the 4th respondent has kept the petitioner under suspension and initiated disciplinary proceedings vide Memorandum of Charge dated 30.09.2010 by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner submitted his explanation. Subsequently an enquiry 2 was initiated, basing on the enquiry report vide proceedings dated 02.06.2011 holding that the charge against the petitioner was held proved. The Enquiry Officer without examine the independent witness submitted his findings. The 3rd respondent without independently appreciating the facts has chosen to concur with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and in that process the impugned order of punishment was issued imposing a punishment of PPI for two years with cumulative effect without considering the explanation offered by the petitioner. Assailing the said order, the petitioner preferred an Appeal and Revision before the respondents 2 and 1 respectively and the same were rejected without appreciation. Therefore the orders passed by the respondents are illegal and arbitrary. Hence inaction of the respondents is questioned in the writ petition.
4. Per contra, the 1st respondent filed counter denying all material averments made in the writ affidavit and mainly contended that as per directions of the 4th respondent, District Special Party conducted raids on 13.07.2009 against Matka Organizers, beaters and illegal lottery ticket sellers and arrested the matka beaters and seized the matka chits and cash and registered a case and sent them for remand. As the petitioner failed to curb social evils in his police station limits, the 4th 3 respondent placed the petitioner under suspension vide D.O.no.636 of 2009, dated 15.07.2005 and initiated enquiry by examining the witnesses and basing on the both oral and documentary evidence the enquiry officer submitted his report. As per minutes of enquiry holding the article of charges against the petitioner as provide vide letter dated 02.06.2011. Basing on the report, the 3rd respondent who is disciplinary and appointing authority rightly awarded the punishment of PPI for 2 years with effect on future increments and pension besides treating the suspension period as not on duty against the petitioner for the above delinquency vide proceedings dated 12.11.2011. Further the appeal preferred by the petitioner is rejected stating that the petitioner has not put forth any new points in his appeal petition and the revision petition is also rejected on the ground that the petitioner is time barred and devoid of merits. Therefore the writ petition is not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed.
5. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contents urged in the writ petition. Whereas learned Government Pleader for the respondents vehemently opposed to grant any relief in favour of the petitioner as he failed to discharge his official duties and failed to prevent the illegal activities within his police station limits.
4
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the enquiry officer recorded the statements of the official witnesses, but no independent witness is examined. The respondents failed to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner and basing on the evidence of the official witnesses, the enquiry officer concluded the proceedings and submitted his report. Basing on the findings of the Enquiry Officer the 3rd respondent without appreciating the facts has chosen to concur with the finds of the enquiry officer and in that process the impugned orders of punishment were issued imposing a punishment of PPI for 2 years with cumulative effect without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Therefore the impugned order passed by the respondents is illegal and arbitrary.
7. As could be seen from the enquiry report, two official witnesses were examined as PWs 1 and 2, but no independent witness examined. Further the enquiry officer has not given ample opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation. Though the petitioner has submitted his explanation by denying the charges framed against him. But the enquiry officer given finding that the charges against the petitioner are proved. 5
8. However, this Court finds that no proper enquiry was initiated and not given fair opportunity of personal hearing of the petitioner during enquiry and the enquiry officer did not answer about the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Further the respondents rejected the appeal and revision preferred by the petitioner in a simple manner without appreciation.
9. Under these circumstances, the impugned proceedings in C.No.26/C2/PR/RO/ 2009 ROO No. 321/2011, dated 12.10.2011 issued by the 3rd respondent and proceedings in D.Dis.No.06/IGP/South Zone/RR-II/2012, dated 19.04.2012 of the 2nd respondent and Government Memo No.25490/Ser.II/A1/ 2015, dated 03.08.2015 passed in Revision are hereby set aside, while directing the respondents to take steps to re-enquire into the matter, after giving ample opportunity of personal hearing of the petitioner and pass appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law, within (12) twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
6
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
___________________________________
DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
Date: .12.2022.
KK
7
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION (A.T) No.803 of 2021
Date: .12.2022.
KK