Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
1.S.Riyaz Basha, S/O Late Mahaboob Sab, ... vs 1.The Inspector General Of Police (Law & ... on 5 December, 2017
Author: M.Ganga Rao
Bench: M.Ganga Rao
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIANND HONBLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO
Writ Petition No.18025 of 2005
05-12-2017
1.S.Riyaz Basha, S/o late Mahaboob Sab, Aged 39 years, Armed Reserve Police Constable, Special Squad, Anantapur 2. A.Sreera
Aged 39 years, Armed Reserve Police Constable No.1876, Special Squad, Anantapur Petitioners
1.The Inspector General of Police (Law & Order), Rayalaseema Region, A.P., Hyderabad 2. The Deputy Inspector General of Poli
3. The Superintendent of Police, Anantapur Respondents
Counsel for Petitioners:rs. P.Rajeswari, representing
Mr. D.Linga Rao
Counsel for Respondents:Government Pleader for
Services-I (Andhra Pradesh)
<Gist:
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. (1999) 3 SCC 679
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
AND
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO
Writ Petition No.18025 of 2005
Order: (per V.Ramasubramanian, J.)
The petitioners have come up with the above writ
petition, challenging a common order passed by the Andhra
Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, dismissing two
independent applications filed by them, challenging the
orders of penalty passed against them.
2. Heard Smt. P.Rajeswari, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of Mr. D.Linga Rao, learned counsel for the
petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I
(Andhra Pradesh).
3. The 1st petitioner herein filed an original application
in O.A.No.1528 of 2001 on the file of the A.P. Administrative
Tribunal challenging an order dated __-6-2000, whereby the
Revisional Authority converted the punishment of removal
from service into one of reduction in the time scale of pay by
two stages for a period of two years. Similarly, the
2nd petitioner filed an independent application in O.A.No.1534
of 2001 challenging the order of the Revisional Authority
modifying the penalty of removal from service into one of
reduction in the time scale of pay by two stages for a period of
two years.
4. Both the applications were dismissed by the A.P.
Administrative Tribunal, forcing the petitioners to come up
with the above writ petition.
5. At the outset, it should be pointed that by a common
order dated 21-4-1998, the Superintendent of Police,
Anantapur, imposed a penalty of dismissal from service upon
both the petitioners, after dispensing with the requirement of
an enquiry, in terms of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution
read with Rule 25(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991.
6. The petitioners filed independent appeals, but by
a common order dated 09-8-1999, the Deputy Inspector
General of Police dismissed the appeals. The petitioners
thereafter filed independent revision petitions. By a common
order dated __-6-2000, the Inspector General of Police allowed
the revisions and modified the punishment of dismissal from
service into one of reduction in the time scale of pay by two
stages for two years.
7. Aggrieved by the common order passed by the
Revisional Authority, the petitioners filed two independent
original applications in O.A.Nos.1528 and 1534 of 2002.
These applications were dismissed by the Tribunal by
a common order dated 24-3-2004.
8. But unfortunately, the petitioners have chosen to
come up with only one writ petition challenging the common
order. Though the order was in common, the same was
passed in two independent applications filed by the
petitioners. Before the Appellate Authority, the Revisional
Authority and before the Tribunal, the petitioners prosecuted
their remedies separately and rightly so. But today, they have
chosen to prosecute their remedy in a single writ petition,
which is not permissible. Therefore, the very maintainability
of the writ petition, is in doubt, since the petitioners ought to
have filed two independent writ petitions challenging the
common order passed in two independent original
applications.
9. De hors the same, we do not also think that there are
any merits in the writ petition. It is seen from the original
order of penalty that the petitioners were posted as personal
security officers to a person, by name Paritala Ravindra.
It was alleged that the petitioners took away one
Venkatanarayana Chetty and one Adinarayana Reddy
belonging to a rival gang, from the premises of NTR Estate
situate in Abids, Hyderabad, on the instructions of Paritala
Ravindra, leading to the murder of those persons. It is stated
in the order of dismissal from service that there were 5
witnesses to the incident whom the Department could have
examined. But out of them, one witness by name Venkata
Ranga Reddy was allegedly murdered by an extremist
organisation owing allegiance to the accused. The other
witness was in judicial custody in a case relating to a car
bomb. Two other witnesses who were to be examined in the
departmental enquiry, did not wish to come forward to
depose, as their lives were in danger.
10. Taking into account all the above facts, the
Disciplinary Authority came to the conclusion that it is not
feasible to conduct an enquiry. Hence, he invoked Article
311(2)(b) of the Constitution read with Rule 25(ii) of the A.P.
Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991, to dismiss the petitioners
from service summarily.
11. Though the Appellate Authority dismissed the
appeals filed by the petitioners, the Revisional Authority
considered the case of the petitioners sympathetically. By the
time the revision petitions were taken up for consideration,
the petitioners were acquitted in the criminal case in which
they were implicated, for the murder of the aforesaid two
persons. Therefore, taking note of the acquittal, the Revisional
Authority came to the conclusion that a lenient view could be
taken. At the same time, the Revisional Authority did not
want to let the petitioners off, in view of the fact that there
was a failure on their part to monitor the activities of the
person for whom they were posted as personal security
officers.
12. In the above circumstances, we do not think that
the orders of the Revisional Authority require any
modification.
13. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners
placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in
M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. , we do not
think that the said decision has any bearing upon the present
case. In Paul Anthony, the Supreme Court was concerned
with the question whether the departmental proceedings and
criminal proceedings can simultaneously go on, when they
were on the same set of facts. In this case, the Disciplinary
Authority dispensed with the enquiry, for which he had power
under special circumstances. Therefore, it was not a case of
parallel proceedings. Moreover, it was the acquittal of the
petitioners in the criminal case that earned them back their
employment with a lesser penalty. Therefore, we see no
reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Hence, the
writ petition is dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions, if any,
pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No costs.
___________________________
V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
_________________ M.GANGA RAO, J. 05th December, 2017.