Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Mohd. Yousuf vs Director General And ... on 13 May, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(3)ALD93, 2001(3)ALT520
Author: S.B. Sinha
Bench: S.B. Sinha
ORDER S.B. Sinha, CJ.
1. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 17-2-1995 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in RP No.3075 of 1989, as also the order dated 27-10-1999 in Review MA No.657 of 1995.
2. The petitioner herein was charge-sheeted, on the allegation of Commission of certain misconduct. A departmental proceeding was held and punishment of removal from service was imposed upon him by the disciplinary authority. An appeal was preferred there against by the petitioner and the appellate authority reduced the punishment by substituting the same by reduction in rank removal from service. The revision carried there against by the petitioner herein was dismissed.
3. The learned Tribunal has arrived at a finding of fact that the enquiry was not vitiated by any irregularity or illegality. As regards the quantum of punishment, it was held that lenient view has already been taken by the appellate authority. The Tribunal, thus, held:
"There is no illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the 3rd respondent or modifying the penalty by the 2nd respondent or rejecting the revision petition by the 1 st respondent."
4. Mr. K. Ananth Rao, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the impugned order is vitiated in law inasmuch as the principles of natural justice had not been complied with. The learned Counsel would next contend that in any event, while imposing the punishment of reduction to a lower rank. Standing Order 210 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Standing Orders has not been followed. We do not find any reason to accept the first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. However, so far as the second contention is concerned, we find sufficient force therein. Standing Order 210 reads thus:
"Reduction to a lower rank :--(1) No officer shall be reduced to a lower rank that that to which he was directly recruited.
(2) Wholesale reduction by a number of grades or increments at a time should be ordered on punishment rolls. Drastic reductions may be within the letter of the rules, but they are not in keeping with their spirit and are undesirable from every point of view.
(3) In ordering a reduction, the punishing authority shall expressly state in the order-
(a) the period for reduction is ordered;
(b) that the period of reduction should be wholly spent on duty excluding any period of leave or suspension;
(c) whether reduction, if to a lower stage in the same time scale, shall have the effect of postponing future increments;' and
(d) that the effect of the punishment on pension has been considered and that the order is intended to have that effect."
5. Paragraph (3) of the said statutory order, therefore, clearly states that while ordering reduction, the punishing authority shall expressly state in the order as regards the period for which the reduction is ordered. The appellate authority, unfortunately, has not adhered to the said statutory provision. In this view of the matter, we have no other option but to hold that the matter requires fresh consideration at the hands of the appellate authority for passing appropriate Order in terms of paragraph (3) of the Standing Order 210 of the A.P. Police Standing Orders. It is directed accordingly.
6. The writ petition is allowed to the aforementioned extent and the matter is remitted to the second respondent herein. He is hereby directed to pass an appropriate order keeping in view the paragraph (3) of the said Standing Order 210. No order as to costs.