Telangana High Court
K. Ravi Kumar, vs State Of Telangana, on 9 September, 2024
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 42586 OF 2016
ORDER:
Proceedings dated 12.08.2016 of the 3rd respondent whereby and whereunder petitioner was dismissed from service with a demand to remit loan amount of Rs.4,16,492.05 ps. through letter dated 22.09.2016, was challenged in this Writ Petition. Consequently, a direction is sought to the 2nd respondent to reinstate petitioner into service forthwith and pay salary and all attendant benefits.
2. Petitioner's case is that he joined the services of the 2nd respondent in 1991 and got promotion in 2001 to the post of Trade Assistant and lastly, worked in computer wing. It is stated that as per the directions of H.R. Department, all the employees, except Respondents 4 and 5 submitted their date of birth certificates. It is the complaint of petitioner that at the instigation of the 6th respondent, they have been avoiding to submit the certificates, since they were in employment on compassionate ground by producing fake date of birth certificates.
It seems, Respondents 4 and 5 made a complaint against some persons who harassed them and trying to assault 2 them by intimidating and also issued legal notice dated 07.11.2009 warning one union leader namely K. Yadaiah and others and later complained to police that their photographs were uploaded in the website and the said case was closed as wrong complaint wherein Respondents 4 and 5 offered apology in inducting them into false crime. It is stated that petitioner was made scapegoat in the complaint made by Respondents 4 and 5 by ignoring the actual culprits. It is the grievance of petitioner that Respondents 4 and 5 became habitual of making complaints on one person or the other to extract money under the influence of the 6th respondent. Police also for statistical purposes, have filed the charge sheet hurriedly simply referring his name coercively to safeguard actual culprits and based on the said charge sheet, Respondents 2 and 3 placed petitioner under suspension without considering his explanation. Though the proceedings are pending consideration, Respondents 2 and 3 referred the matter to the Chairman, Women's Complaints Committee though there is no provision / authority to do so during the pendency of enquiry for extraneous reasons and later, he was dismissed from service.
3. The General Manager of Telangana Foods - 3rd respondent filed the counter stating that as per the orders of the 3 2nd respondent, the Women's Complaints Committee including member of an NGO 'Boomika Womens Collective' Kondaveeti Satyavathi conducted enquiry on the charges levelled against petitioner. It is stated that Respondents 4 and 5 working with the Telangana Foods gave their passport size photographs in the computer wing to petitioner for the purpose of preparation of I.D. cards. After some days, Respondents 4 and 5 lodged a complaint with Cyber Crime Police Station, Hyderabad stating that some of the employees created face book accounts on their names and placed their passport size photographs and uploaded their faces with some defamatory lady postures and created face book accounts with derogatory titles; based on their complaint, FIR No. 194 of 2004 was registered for the offence under Section 509 IPC. and Section 67(A) of the IT Act wherein petitioner was arrested. The Organisation initiated departmental enquiry on the ground of misconduct in official duty, hence, petitioner was placed under suspension on 16.12.2014 and charges were framed. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by him on 02.01.2015 and 03.03.2015, as morphing and uploading photos of Respondents 4 and 5 in Face Book account comes under Sexual harassment at work place (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013, the matter 4 was referred to Women's Complaints Committee. Based on the report submitted by the said Committee, petitioner was removed from service on 12.08.2016. This respondent denied the allegation that Respondents 4 and 5 submitted fake date of birth certificates. It is stated that after thorough verification of all required certificates, the authorities of Organization appointed them on compassionate ground due to death of their husbands. It is further stated that the organisation sanctioned housing loan to petitioner, therefore notices were issued to petitioner as per terms and conditions. Afterwards, petitioner paid loan amount and all documents in respect of house were also returned to him, hence the loan matter was closed. Therefore harassment of the petitioner does not arise.
It is also stated that petitioner was issued warn memo on 29.07.1993 for the absence from work place and wilful disobedience of orders of superiors, two increments with cumulative effect were withheld on 03.09.1995 for his wrong declaration of date of birth at the time of joining and earlier also, petitioner was suspended on 06.10.2004 due to Criminal Case No. 87 of 2004 registered for the offences under Sections 420, 494, 498-A IPC. based on the complaint of K. Naga Laxmi and he was arrested, hence placed under suspension and 5 subsequently, he was reinstated into service. It is further stated that Women's Complaint Committee also in the enquiry report stated that petitioner had low esteem towards women and earlier also, he cheated a woman, therefore the organisation suspended him from service for his misconduct and later he was reinstated into service upon court order which depicts that he did not change his attitude. The additional affidavit dated 26.06.2019 of petitioner stating that he is not even being allowed to draw PF amount standing to his credit in view of dismissal order is baseless and false. As petitioner did not make any representation to the official respondents to withdraw the PF amount, permitting him to withdraw PF amount does not arise.
4. Respondents 4 to 6 filed counter stating that petitioner made them as parties unnecessarily in service matter and on the said reason, Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. The proceedings impugned pertains to petitioner and his employer i.e. Respondents 2 and 3. Petitioner, in his affidavit stated that Respondents 4 and 5 issued legal notice on 07.11.2009, is correct. The said legal notice was in 2009, but petitioner cleverly linked-up the same to the police complaint, dated 19.09.2014 to escape from the criminal action. 6 Police established during investigation that petitioner was responsible for creation of fake profile in the Face Book Account, but to escape from the criminal action, made false allegation that Respondents 4 and 5 are hand-in-glove with the 6th respondent. Petitioner suppressed the actual facts in the affidavit as is evident from the version of LWs.1 & 2, Reports of BSNL, Hyderabad and investigation, it is clearly established that accused committed offences which are punishable as per Section 509 IPC & 67 (a) of the IT Act.
5. Heard Sri R. Giri Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the official respondents. He placed on record a copy of the judgment in Writ Appeal No. 248 of 2024 and submits that it is well-settled legal proposition that the question of choice of quantum of punishment is within the jurisdiction and discretion of the disciplinary authority. The Court, while undertaking judicial review of the matter, is not supposed to substitute its own opinion on reappraisal of facts. In exercise of judicial review, the Court can interfere with the punishment imposed, when it is found to be totally irrational or is outrageous in defiance of logic. This limited scope of judicial review is permissible and interference is available only when the 7 punishment is shockingly disproportionate, suggesting lack of good faith. Otherwise, merely because in the opinion of the Court, lesser punishment would have been more appropriate, cannot be a ground to interfere with the discretion of the departmental authority.
6. The gist of the charges alleged against petitioner is that while performing his duties in Finance & Accounts Section, during September, 2014, he created fake profiles in the face book with passport size photographs of Smt. S. Bharathi, Smt. G. Indiramma - Respondents 4 and 5, who were working in the Organisation as Material Movement works which caused severe pain to them and it damaged the reputation of concerned and Organisation also. A perusal of the proceedings No. TF/HRD/E/352/1991-16, dated Nil.06.2016 of the 2nd respondent would go to show that since the Enquiry Officer did not give a clear verdict, the matter was handed over to the Women's Complaints Committee for Prevention of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace, which committee, submitted its report observing that petitioner has very low esteem of women in general and it is noticed by the Committee from records that earlier also, he had cheated another woman and was also suspended from service and later was re-instated 8 on court orders. The Committee further felt that petitioner with his deliberate act of morphing and uploading the photos of complainants who were appointed on compassionate grounds caused damage to dignity and decency of these women, hence, he was dismissed from service with immediate effect as per the penalty for major misconduct provided under Certified Standing Order No. 18.1.7 with a further warning that if any other instances of morphing of images of women working in Telangana Foods or outside is brought to the notice of the officers, strict criminal proceedings would be initiated against him as per the procedure. The prime contention of petitioner in this regard is that Respondents 4 and 5 with the instigation of the 6th respondent, implicated him with the subject allegations.
7. Here it is to be noted that Respondents 4 and 5 during the hearing had taken out I.A.No. 1 of 2023 to take on record the documents i.e. FIR No. 194 of 2014, copy of charge sheet and judgment in C.C.No. 46 of 2017, copies of letter dated 20.10.2017, list of property sent to Magistrate, BSNL Bill, statements of Respondents 4 and 5 recorded by Cybercrime Police and confession-cum-seizure panchnama. Those documents were taken on record by order dated 03.04.2024. The said documents would show that based on the complaint 9 lodged by Smt. S. Bharathi, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Cyberabad registered Crime No. 194 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 509 IPC. and 67(A) of IT Act. During the course of investigation, he examined Smt. Siddam Bharathi and Smt. Giri Indira and recorded their detailed statements; IP logs during various logins into fake profile created by the accused were obtained from Facebook authorities; from the analysis of IP address, it was found that they belong to the mobile / internet service provider - BSNL, addressed a requisition to BSNL, Hyderabad through the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crimes, Cyberabad for procuring details of IP addresses. From the report furnished by BSNL, it was found that internet was accessed from M/s A.P. Foods, IDA, Nacharam and from the internet/phone connection taken on the name of Mr. Ravi Kumar Kamalla, R/o Bibinagar, Nalgonda, phone number of BSNL land line is 08685-278066; on his apprehension, petitioner admitted his guilt and he along with a copy of BSNL landline bill, CPU of his personal computer and router through which he accessed internet at his house were produced before the investigating agency where his confession was recorded. In the said confession, petitioner admitted that in June 2014, using the scanned passport size 10 photographs of two women, he created two facebook profiles in the names of 'Bharathi Siddam' and 'Bharathi Bharatamma' using two user Ids.: '[email protected]' and '[email protected]' created previously respectively, he uploaded obscene pictures obtained from internet on these two profiles, also sent 'Add/Friend requests' to his other company's colleagues who have facebook accounts; he did this as he could not bear their active role in HMS union as they cannot know about the fake profiles created on them as they are not computer or internet savvy; he used to login to these profiles from his computer in Accounts Section of the company and also from his personal computer at his house using BSNL phone- cum-internet connection using a router. In the last week of October, when he tried to login, he could not do so. From the above, it can clearly be held that petitioner is responsible for the offence alleged against him.
8. Petitioner had also taken out I.A.No.1 of 2019 which was allowed by order dated 31.07.2023, stating that he was acquitted by the competent criminal Court on the charges as neither complainants nor any other witnesses gave evidence in support of the charges framed against him, hence, he prayed that he may be reinstated into service. Admittedly, in the 11 criminal case, petitioner was acquitted of the charges as the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, by examining the witnesses. However, it is well settled that 'the nature of proceedings being wholly separate and distinct, acquittal in criminal proceedings does not entitle the delinquent employee for any benefit in the latter or automatic discharge in departmental proceedings'. In view of the same, it can be said that acquittal of petitioner in criminal case does not enure to his benefit.
9. Further, as is evident from the report submitted by Bhumika Women's Collective, on 23.05.2016, when they enquired about reason behind committal of alleged charge, petitioner did not respond to any of the queries. Ultimately, for the question that 'why he did morph the photos of Respondents 4 and 5, petitioner replied that they are illiterate and he thought that they could not access the Apps. The Committee therefore, taking into consideration the earlier incidents where he cheated a married woman for which he was suspended, recommended for his dismissal from service. If at all petitioner is not guilty of the charges, he ought to have endeavoured to establish the said fact by producing the evidence in support thereof. In the absence of same and in view of the observations made by the 12 Women's Collective, the other contentions made by learned counsel for petitioner pales into insignificance.
10. Taking the totality of circumstances into account and in view of the legal position quoted supra, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought by petitioner, hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
11. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
12 Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
--------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 09th September 2024 ksld