Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Vishal Gunni vs Chief Secretary Government Of Andhra ... on 29 August, 2025
OA/423/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERBAD BENCH
OA/020/0423/2025
HYDERABAD, this the 29th day of August, 2025
Hon'ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, Administrative Member
Mr. Vishal Gunni,
S/o D Jayaprakash, Aged about 41 years,
R/o No 44, 5th, A, Main Hebbal Bangalore, Karnataka-560024
Indian Police Services (2010),
Deputy Inspector General (under suspension)
Formerly Deputy Commissioner of Police,
NTR Police Commissionerate,
Andhra Pradesh
..... Applicant.
(By Advocate: Mr. Avinash Desai, Senior Counsel
with Mr. Pranav Munigela)
Vs.
1. Government of Andhra Pradesh,
Chief Secretary to Government,
General Administration Department,
Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi.
2. Secretary to Government of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, New Delhi-110001.
3. Director General of Police (HoPF),
Mangalagiri, Andhra Pradesh.
...Respondents.
(By Advocate: Mrs. B. Gayatri Varma, Sr. CGSC for R-2,
Mr. G.V.L. Murthy, GP for AP)
Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana,
VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb,
SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.09.15 18:01:23+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
Page 1 of 38
OA/423/2025
ORAL ORDER
(As per Hon'ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member) By this Original Application, the applicant is seeking the following relief:
"This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to set-aside the order bearing GO Rt. No. 1590 dated 15.09.2024, GO Rt No. 1970 dated 13.11.2024 and GO Rt. No. 518 dated 12.03.2025 which suspended and subsequently extended the suspension of the services of Applicant herein as being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to grant posting to the Applicant herein and grant all consequential benefits that will accrue including payment of arrears and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
CASE OF THE APPLICANT:
2. The applicant is a 2010 batch IPS Officer of the Andhra Pradesh Cadre, having secured 439 All India Rank in CSE-2009. He has completed 14 years of service and his last posting was Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG), Vijayawada Police Commissionerate. He has received „Antarik Suraksha‟ Medal by the Ministry of Home Affairs, GOI for his outstanding work in Anti-Maoist operations and two DGP Commendation medals. He won prestigious "International Chiefs of Police Award for Community Policing". He was also awarded "Best Road Safety Initiative of the Year Award" by Ministry of Road Transport, apart from three SKOCH Excellence Awards for initiatives in modernizing policing and taking policing closer to people.
3. While working so, he was suspended from the post of DIG, Vijayawada Police Commissionerate, vide order GO Rt. No. 1590, dt. 15.09.2024, under Section 3(1) of the All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969 (for short AIS DA Rules), on the allegation that while working as Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), NTR Police Commissionerate, Vijayawada, he failed to properly supervise the investigation in Crime No. 90 of 2024 U/s. 384, 385, 386, 388, 420, 457, 468, Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.15 18:01:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Page 2 of 38 OA/423/2025 471 r/w. 120(B) IPC of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station against an accused actress from Mumbai, Kumari Kadambari Narendra Kumar Jethwani. The said suspension order was issued purportedly based on an enquiry report, vide letter, dt. 12.09.2024, received from the DGP (HoPF), Andhra Pradesh; Copy of the said report was not furnished to the applicant despite his request. The impugned suspension order further states that the applicant did not ensure that the complaint was thoroughly examined and basic investigation was carried out, before issuing instructions to proceed with arrest and the applicant met the then Director General of Police, Intelligence on 31.01.2024. Though the FIR was registered on 02.02.2024 at 6.30 AM, the applicant hastily proceeded to Mumbai on 02.02.2024 at 7.30 AM without any written instructions from his superior officers and he acted solely based on the prior oral instructions from the then Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada and the then DGP, Intelligence given on 31.01.2024 and arrested the said lady without giving an opportunity to her to explain and this amounts to grave misconduct and dereliction of duty. The impugned order further states that the applicant has ability to influence the witnesses and destroy the evidence/ records and there is prima facie evidence against him, for which, disciplinary proceedings are warranted against him and, therefore, it is necessary to place him under suspension. The said suspension order was confirmed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, vide letter, dt. 14.10.2024.
The applicant appealed to the Secretary to the Govt of India, Ministry of Home Affairs on 24.10.2024 for revocation of the impugned suspension order, dt. 15.09.2024, but, till date, no order has been passed thereon, though the applicant sent a reminder on 02.04.2025.
4. It is the contention of the applicant that the impugned proceedings appear to have been initiated at the behest of the accused No.1 in Crime No. 90/2024 i.e. Kadambari Narendra Kumar Jethwani and the Hon‟ble High Court of Andhra Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.15 18:01:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Page 3 of 38 OA/423/2025 Pradesh in CRLP No. 6734/2024 has observed that the very initiation of the proceedings at the behest of the accused person in the said Crime suffers from a serious legal flaw. Further, a Review Committee was constituted for review of the suspension of the applicant, vide GO Rt. No. 1952, dt. 12.11.2024, and on the recommendations of the said Committee, suspension of the applicant has been extended for a further period up to 13.03.2025, vide GO Rt. No. 1970, dt. 13.11.2024, and further extended up to 09.09.2025, vide GO Rt. No. 518, dt. 12.03.2025, which are also under challenge in this OA. Further, vide GO Rt. No. 1957, dt. 12.11.2024, an inquiry was proposed to be conducted against the applicant and Articles of Charge were issued under Rule 8 of AIS DA Rules and the applicant was directed to submit his written statement of defence within 30 days, failing which, action would be taken against him based on the material available deeming that he has no explanation to offer.
5. It is the contention of the applicant he was not served with copies of the documents listed in Annexure III to the charge memo, as mandated under the said Rules. Therefore, he requested the Chief Secretary, Govt. of AP, vide letter, dt. 06.12.2024, for supply of the listed documents under Annexure III, without which, he would not able be to submit a written statement and also requested to count the 30 days period from the date of supply of the said documents. In response, the Government of AP issued a Memo, dt. 11.01.2025, stating that there is no provision under Rule 8 of the AIS DA Rules to supply copies of the documents by the disciplinary authority to a Member of Service and, therefore, he was requested to submit his written statement of defence. Accordingly, the applicant submitted his written statement of defence on 16.02.2025. It is contended by the applicant that the alleged Articles of Charge leveled against him are based on wrong and false information and there was no procedural lapses, as alleged, which was attributable to Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.15 18:01:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Page 4 of 38 OA/423/2025 him, at any point of time. He proceeded to Mumbai only to facilitate communication between the law enforcement agencies and his role was limited only to liaison and coordinating with Mumbai Police upon the instructions from his superiors, and the arrest team had undertaken its own steps in conduct of the operation. Therefore, he was wrongfully charged under Section 3(3)(i) of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, for acting upon the instructions of the officer, who is not his superior officer. He had duly adhered to the instructions of his immediate superior i.e. the CP, Vijayawada, and the then DGP Intelligence, the then DGP HOPF. He had left to Mumbai only after an FIR was filed, with clear instructions from his immediate superior and, therefore, the alleged charge is false and baseless.
6. It is further stated by the applicant that he has no role in ordering or conducting the arrests, as the power to arrest the suspects lies only with the investigation officer or the unit officer incharge of the case and he was neither a supervisory officer nor the Investigating Officer. However, the arresting team has followed due process and standard procedure of conducting preliminary enquiry before registering FIR and the accused was taken to the nearest Police station in Juhu and was produced before the Hon‟ble Judicial Magistrate in Mumbai, who granted transit remand. On arrival at Vijayawada, the accused was again produced before Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada, who, ordered remand of the accused to judicial custody till 16.02.2024. The applicant categorically stated that he did not personally depute or assign the officers responsible for making the arrest and the said team was deputed by the unit officer and he was not actively involved in directing or interfering or participating in the investigative or arrest procedures. He was briefed that the nature of the case was confidential and highly sensitive and required utmost secrecy and urgency, as there was an element of national interest at Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.15 18:01:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Page 5 of 38 OA/423/2025 risk, in view of the allegation that the accused had personal links to underworld activities. Therefore, he was bound to follow their instructions by automatically presuming the credibility of the information and in order to maintain secrecy, he had booked travel tickets without formal intimation as any leak of information could have jeopardized the operation or could have alerted the suspect. With regard to the allegations that the applicant did not claim Travel Allowance, he has stated that the said expenses were covered in the Commissioner of Police - Secret Reserve (SR) for confidential operations and as such, he did not claim TA.
7. The applicant further contends that the alleged events pertain to the period from January to February 2024, whereas, action has been initiated in September 2024, which goes to show that it is an afterthought. Further, the fact that the complainant in Crime No. 469 of 2024 has remained silent all the while, till 13.09.2024, shows that the current proceedings have been initiated against him in a premeditated and malafide manner. Even the Hon‟ble High Court in Crl. P. No. 6734/2024 observed that "Registering Crime No. 469/2024 at the behest of the accused in Crime No. 90/2024 suffers from serious legal flaw" and, accordingly, granted pre-arrest bail to the applicant. There are no specific allegations leveled against the applicant except making bald averment that he was deputed to Mumbai to know the antecedents of the complainant before filing a case in Crime No. 90/2024, which is not correct. The Hon‟ble High Court also granted stay of all further proceedings in the said crime in a petition filed by Accused No.7. The applicant further contends that the document allegedly relied upon to frame the charges is the report of the Asst. Commissioner of Police, CCS, Vijayawada, who is not a Member of service and this report appears to be the foundation for the charge memo. It is submitted that, disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated on an investigation report of a subordinate Police Officer and therefore, the entire Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.15 18:01:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Page 6 of 38 OA/423/2025 proceedings are vitiated. The enquiry proceedings have been initiated against him as an afterthought after change in ruling dispensation. Action has been ordered against three Members of Service in common proceedings, but when a joint action is taken, the articles of charge and statement of imputations should be joint and specify the role played by each of the delinquent Members of Service, which is lacking.
8. It is further contended that the Review Committee ought to have seen that the Inquiry Authority has not been constituted in accordance with AIS DA Rules and even in the latest order, dt. 19.03.2025, irrelevant reasons were put forward before the Review Committee. On this ground alone, continuation of suspension of the applicant is required to be set aside. Rules 3(8)(d) of AIS DA Rules provides for extension of the suspension period, on the recommendations of the concerned Review Committee, for a further period not exceeding 180 days at a time and the said provision grants discretion to the State Government to extend the suspension of an officer. However, a perusal of the GO RT No. 1970, dt. 13.11.2024, and GO Rt No. 518, dt.12.03.2025, would reveal that the respondent State Government has mechanically extended the suspension of the applicant without application of mind and no reasons are stated as to how the State Government has considered the said recommendation. Thus, the said GOs are against the provisions of Rule 3(8) of the AIS DA Rules. The applicant pleaded that the impugned suspension order and its continuation is psychologically debilitating him, thereby affecting his career and his family. Thus, the impugned suspension and its continuation being baseless are liable to be revoked.
CASE OF THE RESPONDENTS
9. Upon notices, the 1st respondent appeared through their Counsel and filed a counter affidavit. It is stated by the 1st respondent that, the DGP (HOPF), vide letter, dt. 12.09.2024, had reported that a detailed enquiry report has been received from Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.15 18:01:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Page 7 of 38 OA/423/2025 the Commissioner of Police, NTR Police Commissionerate, Vijayawada regarding allegations on investigation in Cr. No. 90 of 2024 U/s. 384, 385, 386, 388, 420, 457, 468, 471 r/w. 120 (B) IPC of Ibrahimpatnam PS against an actress from Mumbai Kum. Kadambari Narendra Kumari Jethwani. The DGP HOPF reported that the applicant failed to properly supervise the investigation and did not ensure that the complaint was thoroughly examined and no basic investigation was carried out before issuing instructions to proceed with arrest. It is further reported that the officer met the DPG, Intelligence, on 31.01.2024; the FIR was registered on 02.02.2024 at 6.30 AM. The applicant hastily proceeded to Mumbai on 02.02.2024 at 7.30 AM without any written instructions from his superior officers and he acted solely based on the prior oral instructions from the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, and the then DGP, Intelligence, and, thus, the said act of the applicant amounts to grave misconduct and dereliction of duty. The whole act was carried out within few hours of registration of FIR, without proper documentary or material evidence, which is nothing but sheer disregard of the basic tenets of investigation.
After careful consideration of the report and having regard to the circumstances of the case and having found prima facie evidence against the applicant, it was considered necessary to initiate proceedings against the applicant for his grave misconduct and dereliction of duty, and to place him under suspension. Accordingly, the GO Rt No. 1590, dt. 15.09.2024, was issued placing him under suspension with immediate effect and the same was confirmed by the 2 nd respondent, Ministry of Home Affairs, vide letter, dt.14.10.2024. Subsequently, disciplinary proceedings have also been initiated against the applicant, vide GO Rt. No. 1957, dt. 12.11.2024.
10. It is stated that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated independently based on the administrative records for the lapses committed by the applicant after a preliminary inquiry, and the said proceedings are not connected with the criminal Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.15 18:01:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Page 8 of 38 OA/423/2025 proceedings referred to above. It is stated that the arresting team failed to furnish crucial material facts regarding the timeline and procedural lapses to the remand court in the course of further investigation of Cr. No. 90/2024 and Cr. No. 469/2024 of Ibrahimpatnam PS. Subsequent production of the accused before the Judicial Magistrate at Vijayawada was also based on the continuation of this flawed process and the remand order does not cure the foundational illegality of initiating coercive action before proper registration of a cognizable office. It is also stated that the arrest and transit process was not only premature and violative of the procedure established under law, but also forms part of a larger conspiracy involving misuse of official machinery, coercion and violation of Fundamental Rights of the complainant in Crime No. 469/2024. It is further stated that the record indicates that the accused officers, including A-6, acted with prior knowledge and intent to arrest the de facto complainant even before registration of any FIR in Crime No. 90/2024 and booking of flights tickets on 01.02.2024 and the assembly of officers at the CMO Office on 31.01.2024 clearly indicate that police action was initiated in furtherance of a premeditated conspiracy, rather than based on any preliminary enquiry, as claimed.
The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1 held that registration of FIR is mandatory when information discloses a cognizable offence and preliminary enquiry may be conducted only in limited circumstances, whereas, in the instant case, neither was there any such enquiry properly documented nor was any written approval obtained from the competent authority before proceeding to arrest. Production of the accused before the Judicial Magistrate, Mumbai, and grant of transit remand cannot be construed as validation of the arrest.
11. It is stated that the version of the applicant in his written statement, dt. 01.09.2024, is different from the case being sought to be projected before this Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.15 18:01:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Page 9 of 38 OA/423/2025 Tribunal. The applicant has come up with a new story of defence that he was briefed about the nature of the case being highly sensitive and confidential and required utmost secrecy and urgency, as national security was involved as the accused has personal contacts with underworld activities, which was not stated in his written statement. The present disciplinary action is not solely based on the complaint of Ms. Kadambari Jethawni, as alleged, but is based on a detailed investigation, supported by documentary evidence, including call detail records, movement records, travel office files, ticket booking, departmental statements and the applicant‟s own self-signed declaration. Considering the rank and seniority of the applicant and his involvement in influencing the chain of events, the apprehension that he may influence witnesses or tamper with the evidence is not without any basis. The time taken from January- February to September, 2024, was to gather material facts, corroborate records and examine official communications and the same reflects due diligence and not malafide intent.
12. The appeal of the applicant, dt. 24.10.2024, against his suspension was considered by the Ministry of Home Affairs and rejected vide letter, dt. 27.03.2025, which was communicated to the applicant on 30.04.2025. The applicant submitted another appeal on 02.04.2025, which was sent to DGP, AP, for remarks, vide Memo, dt. 03.08.2025, and the reply of the DGP is awaited. The suspension of the applicant was extended, duly following the procedure prescribed in the AIS DA Rules and the Review Committee, which was constituted on 12.11.2024 for the purpose, had met on 13.11.2024 and considered the Articles of Charge issued vide GO Rt. No, 1957, dt. 12.11.2024; information from the DGP (HOPF) to the effect that Cr. No. 469/2024, dt. 13.09.2024, has been registered against the applicant and other MoS and the case had been transferred to the CID, vide proceedings, dt. 09.10.2024, for further investigation and there is a possibility of tampering of evidence and Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.15 18:01:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Page 10 of 38 OA/423/2025 influencing the process of inquiry and investigation by the applicant, as he holds a high rank. Having considered the same, the Review Committee recommended extension of suspension for a further period upto 13.03.2025 and the same was accepted by the respondent and orders were issued on 13.11.2024. The Review Committee again met on 06.03.2025 and, in view of the DPG letter, dt. 06.03.2025, that investigation in Cr. No. 469/2024 has reached a critical stage and certain documents need to be cross-checked and if the applicant is reinstated, he may influence the investigation, recommended extension of suspension of the applicant for a further period of 180 days, up to 09.09.2025. The Government, having accepted the said recommendations, issued orders, dt. 12.03.2025, to the said effect.
13. Respondent No.1 further submitted that there is no specific rule that articles of charges and the statement of imputations should be joint and specify role played by each of the delinquent Members of Service and the applicant has access to the charge memos, dt. 12.11.2024, issued to other two Members of Service as they are available on the website. The respondent admitted that the applicant represented on 06.12.2024, seeking copies of all the relevant documents mentioned in Annexure III to the Charge Memo, dt. 12.11.2024, and also sought further time of 30 days for submission of his Written statement of defence, counting from the date of providing such documents to him. However, the respondent stated that, as per sub-rule (5)(a) of Rule 8 of AIS DA Rules, only a list of documents needs to be provided by the DA to the MoS and, as per sub-rule 12 of Rule 8, the Inquiring Authority shall furnish relevant copies of documents to the MoS, during the inquiry and there is no express provision under Rule 8 to supply copies of the documents listed in Annexure III by the DA to MoS. Therefore, the applicant was informed of the same, vide Memo, dt.
11.01.2025, and requested to submit his written statement within 5 days. However, the applicant submitted his written statement, dt. 16.02.2025, while stating that not Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.15 18:01:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Page 11 of 38 OA/423/2025 providing relevant documents would result in great injustice and the same is contrary to the mandate of the GOI OM,g dt. 02.02.2023. Respondents stated that there is distinction between the statutory rules, i.e., AIS DA Rules and the executive instructions, i.e., OM, dt. 02.02.2023, and since the Rules do not mandate supply of documents at the charge sheet stage, the OM cannot override them. However, after taking legal opinion and in compliance with the principles of natural justice, documents listed in Annexure III of the charge memo were sent to the applicant, vide Memo, dt. 04.08.2025.
14. Respondents also submitted that the investigation revealed that Sri PSR Anjaneyulu, IPS, summoned Sri Kanthi Rana Tata, IPS, and the applicant on 30.01.2024 and instructed them to arrest Kadambari Jethwani. On 01.02.2024, flight tickets were booked, indicating that police action was initiated even before the case was registered on 02.02.2024. During the investigation, the applicant also submitted a self-signed declaration statement, dated 01.09.2024, wherein, he stated that he had already been transferred and posted as DIG, Vizag Range, and that A-2 intentionally compelled him to arrest the said lady, stating that he would be relieved from his present posting only after completing the task of arrest and, left with no alternative, he proceeded to Mumbai to arrest the de facto complainant Kum. Kadambari Jewani, and Asha Narendra Kumar Jetwani, accused in Crime No. 90/2024. Subsequently, A-2 also instructed the applicant to arrest the father of the complainant, Narendra Kumar Jetwani, and following the said instructions, the applicant arrested the above individuals and brought them to Ibrahimpatnam PS, along with him team. Analysis of the Call Detail Records of all the accused clearly establishes that they acted with a common intention and in furtherance of a conspiracy, gathered at the CMO office to execute their plan and this evidence supports the self-declaration statement by the applicant.
Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.15 18:01:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Page 12 of 38 OA/423/2025 REJOINDER OF THE APPLICANT
15. The applicant filed the rejoinder refuting the contentions made by the Respondent No.1 in their counter affidavit in its entirety. It is submitted by the applicant that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned therein and the same cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the form of affidavit or otherwise and when an order was bad in the beginning, it cannot get validated by additional grounds when it reaches court of law by way of challenge to the same. Thus, it is stated that, averments made in the counter affidavit cannot be used to supplement the impugned GOs issued by the Government. The very fact that the disciplinary proceedings and the impugned suspension are based on the complaint given by Kum. Kadambari Jethwani, accused No.1 in Crime No. 90/2024, is legally flawed and would vitiate the entire proceedings, as held by the Hon‟ble High Court in Crl P No. 6734 of 2024.
As the Hon‟ble High Court has stayed all further proceedings against the applicant in Crime No. 469/2024 on the file of Ibrahimpatnam PS, which is the basis for initiating disciplinary action against him and extending his suspension, the very basis is wiped out and therefore, the impugned suspension of the applicant and the extensions thereof, are not sustainable.
16. Heard Counsels for both the sides and perused the material available on record.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT
17. Mr. Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant, primarily argued that the impugned proceedings have been initiated against the applicant on the basis of the statement/ complaint of Kum. Kadambari Jethwani, who is an accused No.1 in Crime No. 90 of 2024 and therefore, the impugned Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.15 18:01:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Page 13 of 38 OA/423/2025 proceedings are unsustainable under law. In fact, the Hon‟ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in Crl. Petition No. 6734 of 2024, vide its order dt. 07.01.2025, categorically observed that registering Crime No.469/2024 against the applicant, at the behest of the Accused No.1 in Crime No. 90/2024, suffers from serious legal flaw and that the criminal justice machinery had been moved in a wrong way. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the impugned proceedings pertain to an incident, which took place on 02.02.2024, whereas, the impugned proceedings were issued on 15.09.2024, i.e. after more than seven months. Further, the very fact that the criminal complaint is dated 13.09.2024, i.e., only one day after the DGP‟s letter, dt. 12.09.2024, referred to in the impugned proceedings, dt. 15.09.2024, indicates a well-planned conspiracy. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that, even according to the respondents, the impugned proceedings have been initiated on the basis of the DGP‟s letter, dt. 12.09.2024, which, in turn, is based on the report, dt. 10.09.2024, submitted by Dr. K. Shravanthi Roy, Assistant Commissioner of Police, who had conducted an enquiry into the media reports surrounding Crime No. 90 of 2024 and the said report also suffers from several inconsistencies and lacunas, viz., (i) Though statements of eleven officers were taken, the Respondents have initiated disciplinary action only against four officers and, particularly, the officers, who are part of the Investigating and Arresting Team have not been prosecuted; (ii) Dr. K. Shravanthi Roy, Assistant Commissioner of Police, while purportedly investigating/ enquiring into the inconsistencies in the case registered against Kum Kadambari Jethwani, did not take the statement of the complainant in Crime No. 90 of 2024, K. Vidyasagar; (iii) the applicant was asked to give his statement while he was suffering from immense psychological trauma; (iv) Dr. K. Shravanthi Roy, Assistant Commissioner of Police, being a junior in rank to the applicant, could not have been entrusted with the enquiry into the applicant‟s conduct, as the same is contrary to GOI OM, dt. 06.01.1971, as per which, inquiries against delinquent Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.15 18:01:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Page 14 of 38 OA/423/2025 officers must be conducted by officers, who are sufficiently senior to the officer whose conduct is being inquired into. (v) When the very mandate given to Dr. K. Shravanthi Roy, Assistant Commissioner of Police, was to inquire into the media reports, surprisingly, no media personnel were questioned.
18. Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the applicant, further argued that the applicant was neither the investigating officer nor was part of the arresting team in Crime No. 90/2024. He was sent to Mumbai only for coordination and liaison and action has been initiated against the applicant, while there has been no action against the investigating and arresting team. Hence, the action of the respondents smacks of a pick-and-choose method, with a well planned conspiracy to punish him, for no fault of his. This is further strengthened by the fact that, despite many alleged inconsistencies with respect to Crime No. 90/2024, Respondents are yet to close the said Crime. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the applicant has been granted pre-arrest bail in Crl. P No. 6734/2024, vide order, dt. 07.01.2025, by the Hon‟ble High Court, while observing that registering of Crime No. 469/2024 against the applicant suffers from a serious legal flaw. The Hon‟ble Court, vide its order, dt. 08.05.2025, in Crl. P. No. 4395 of 2025, stayed all further proceedings against the applicant in connection with Crime No. 469 of 2024 and, thereby, wiping out the very basis for extension of the applicant‟s suspension. Learned Counsel also pointed out that there is no progress in the inquiry against the applicant and there is no whisper in the counter affidavit/ orders of extension of suspension, to indicate the progress/ stage of the disciplinary proceedings, even after passage of one year.
19. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that, on the pretext of pendency of the enquiry/ criminal investigation, the applicant cannot be kept in suspension for an indefinite period and, in support of his argument, Learned Counsel cited the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Param Raj Singh Umaranangal v. Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.15 18:01:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Page 15 of 38 OA/423/2025 Union of India (2015) 7 SCC 291. Learned counsel for the applicant also cited the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty, (1994) 4 SCC 126 to contend that suspension must be a step in aid towards the enquiry or investigative process and it cannot be continued after the investigative process is over. Learned counsel further cited the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Agarwal (2013) 16 SCC 147, to the effect that, an order of suspension should only be passed when there is a strong prima facie case against the delinquent officer. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the applicant was not in an active posting from June 2024 onwards, however, he was suspended vide order, dt. 15.09.2024, which goes to show that the impugned action is a pre-determined one and the respondents did not intend to use the services of the applicant. Thus, the learned counsel prayed for setting aside the impugned orders and reinstatement of the applicant into service. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS
20. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for the State of Andhra Pradesh argued that the DGP (HOPF), vide letter, dt. 12.09.2024, had reported that a detailed enquiry report has been received from the Commissioner of Police, NTR Police Commissionerate, Vijayawada, regarding allegations on investigation in Cr. No. 90 of 2024, Ibrahimpatnam PS, against an actress from Mumbai, Kum. Kadambari Narendra Kumari Jethwani. It is also reported that the applicant failed to properly supervise the investigation and did not ensure that the complaint was thoroughly examined and no basic investigation was carried out before issuing instructions to proceed with arrest. The applicant had met the then DPG, Intelligence, on 31.01.2024. The FIR was registered on 02.02.2024, at 6.30 AM, and the applicant hastily proceeded to Mumbai on 02.02.2024, at 7.30 AM, without any written instructions from his superior officers and he acted solely based on the prior Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.15 18:01:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Page 16 of 38 OA/423/2025 oral instructions from the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, and the then DGP, Intelligence, and, thus, the said act of the applicant amounts to grave misconduct and dereliction of duty. After careful consideration of the report and having found prima facie evidence against the applicant, it was decided to initiate proceedings against the applicant, and to place him under suspension. Accordingly, the GO Rt No. 1590, dt. 15.09.2024, was issued placing him under suspension with immediate effect, which was confirmed by the 2nd respondent, Ministry of Home Affairs, vide letter, dt.14.10.2024. Subsequently, disciplinary proceedings have also been initiated against the applicant, vide GO Rt. No. 1957, dt. 12.11.2024, independently, based on the administrative records for the lapses committed by him, after a preliminary inquiry, and the said proceedings are not connected with the said criminal proceedings.
21. Learned Government Pleader further submitted that the arresting team failed to furnish crucial material facts regarding the timeline and procedural lapses to the remand court in the course of further investigation of Cr. No. 90/2024 and Cr. No. 469/2024 of Ibrahimpatnam PS. Learned Counsel submits that the record indicates that the accused officers, including A-6, acted with prior knowledge and intent to arrest the defacto complainant even before the registration of any FIR in Crime No. 90/2024 and, in pursuit thereof, they book flights tickets on 01.02.2024 and they also assembled in the CMO Office, which clearly indicate that police action was initiated in furtherance of a premeditated conspiracy, rather than based on any preliminary enquiry, as claimed.
22. Learned Government Pleader further submitted that the version of the applicant in his written statement, dt. 01.09.2024, is different from the case being projected before this Tribunal. Considering the rank and seniority of the applicant and his involvement in influencing the chain of events, the apprehension that he may Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.15 18:01:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Page 17 of 38 OA/423/2025 influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, is not without any basis. The respondents took time from January- February to September 2024 to gather material facts, corroborate records and examine official communications and the same reflects due diligence, and not malafide intent. The appeal of the applicant, dt. 24.10.2024, against his suspension was considered and rejected by the Ministry of Home Affairs, vide letter, dt. 27.03.2025, which was communicated to the applicant on 30.04.2025. The suspension of the applicant was extended duly following the procedure prescribed in the AIS DA Rules and upon the recommendations of duly constituted Review Committee, which has considered the Articles of Charge; Cr.
No. 469/2024, dt. 13.09.2024, registered against the applicant and other police officers and the fact that case has been transferred to the CID, vide proceedings, dt. 09.10.2024, for further investigation and the possibility of tampering of evidence and influencing the process of inquiry and investigation by the applicant. Having accepted the recommendations of the Review Committee, suspension of the applicant was extended for a further period upto 09.09.2025. Learned Government Pleader submitted that though the applicant represented on 06.12.2024, seeking copies of all the relevant documents mentioned in Annexure III to the Charge Memo, dt. 12.11.2024, as per sub-rule (5)(a) of Rule 8 of AIS DA Rules, only a list of documents needs to be provided by the DA to the MoS and, as per sub-rule 12 of Rule 8, the Inquiring Authority shall furnish relevant copies of documents to the MoS, during the inquiry and there is no express provision under Rule 8 to supply copies of documents listed in Annexure III by the DA to the MoS and the same was informed to the applicant, vide Memo dt. 11.01.2025, and, thereupon, he submitted his written statement, dt. 16.02.2025, while referring to OM, dt. 02.02.2023, in regard to supply of the said documents. The learned Counsel argued that there is a distinction between the statutory rules, i.e., AIS DA Rules and the executive instructions, i.e., OM dt. 02.02.2023, and, since the Rules do not mandate supply of Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.15 18:01:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Page 18 of 38 OA/423/2025 documents at the charge sheet stage, the OM cannot override them. Still, in compliance with the principles of natural justice, documents listed in Annexure III of the charge memo were sent to the applicant vide Memo, dt. 04.08.2025. Learned Government Pleader cited Rule 3(1B) of AIS DA Rules to contend that the period of suspension of a member of service on charges other than corruption shall not exceed one year and even, as per the said Rule, the period of suspension of the applicant has not exceeded one year and since the last extension is valid up to 09.09.2025, the Review Committee will take a decision in the matter and intervention of this Tribunal is not warranted in the matter. Therefore, he prayed that the OA be dismissed.
23. Learned Government Pleader, in support of his case, relied upon the following citations:
i) K. Sarangam & Ors v. The TSRTC & ors
ii) Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat & Anr, 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 678
iii) Buddana Venkata Murali Krishna v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others 2015 SCC Online Hyd 183
iv) Udit Prakash Rai v. Home Affairs
v) Revanna Yeleri v. State of Mysore
vi) Lalitha Kumari v. Govt of UP & Ors, (2013) 14 SCR 713
vii) Satyendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
ANALYSIS
24. To analyze the issue involved in the case and come to a conclusion, it is necessary to refer to the facts in respect of the allegations leveled against the applicant to suspend him, which is impugned in the present OA. The order of suspension, dt. 15.09.2025, impugned in the OA, reads thus:
"xxxx Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.15 18:01:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Page 19 of 38 OA/423/2025
2. Whereas the Director General of Police (HoPF), A.P. has further reported that Sri Vishal Gunni, IPS (the then DCP, NTR Police Commissionerate, Vijayawada) failed to properly supervise the investigation. That he did not ensure that the complaint was thoroughly examined and basic investigation was carried out, before issuing instructions to proceed with arrests. That the Officer met the then Director General of Police, Intelligence on 31.01.2024, and upon the oral instructions, hastily proceeded to Mumbai on 02.02.2024 to effect arrests and arrested Kum. Kadambari Narendra Kumari Jethwani. That the act of Sri Vishal Gunni, IPS the then Deputy Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada Police Commissionerate amounts to grave misconduct and dereliction of duty.
3. The DGP has further reported that the FIR was registered on 02.02.2024 at 6:30 AM and as predetermined, Sri Vishal Gunni, IPS proceeded to Mumbal on 02.02.2024 at 7:30 AM, without any written instructions or without any foreign passport from his superior officers in this regard. That this conduct makes it extremely clear that action was initiated well before the crime was registered and that the officer was acting solely based on the prior instructions of the then Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada and the then Director General of Police, Intelligence issued on 31.01.2024 i.e. even before registration of the crime. It was further reported that he did not even claim the T.A., though he went to Mumbai on official work. That he failed to give an opportunity to the person/s arrested to give explanation, nor did he conduct any Investigation before highhandedly arresting her. The whole act was carried out within few hours of registration of FIR, without proper documentary or material evidence, which is nothing but sheer disregard to the basic tenets of Investigation.
4. It is further reported that the Officer has the ability and wherewithal to influence the witnesses and accomplices involved in the episode and that it is highly likely that he would proceed to Mumbai and also make all efforts to destroy the available evidence/records,
5. The Government after careful consideration of the report and having due regard to the circumstances of the case, considered that there is a prima facie evidence against Sri Vishal Gunni, IPS and that the disciplinary proceedings are warranted for his grave misconduct and dereliction of duty and therefore, consider it necessary to initiate disciplinary proceedings and to place Sri Vishal Gunni, IPS (2010) under suspension.
6. In exercise of powers conferred under Section 3 (1) of All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1969, the Government hereby places Sri Vishal Gunni, IPS (2010), the then Deputy Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada Police Commissionerate (now waiting for posting), under suspension, with immediate effect.
7. xxxx
8. xxxx
25. Further, according to the respondents, the reason for suspension of the applicant is that cognizance of several media reports claiming the involvement of police officers including IPS officers in a case allegedly foisted against the accused No.1 in Crime No. 90/2024 has been taken by the Commissioner of Police, NTR Commissionerate, Vijayawada, suo motu, vide Memo, dt. 29.08.2024, by appointing an officer, by name, Smt. K. Sravanthi Roy, Asst. Commissioner of Police, CCS, Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.15 18:01:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Page 20 of 38 OA/423/2025 NTR Police Commissioner, as enquiry officer, to enquire into the matter and the said officer conducted a detailed inquiry and the statements of the applicant as well as Accused No.1 in Crime No. 90/2024 and other officials have been recorded. Accordingly, a report was submitted on 10.09.2024 to the Commissioner of Police, NTR Police Commissionerate, Vijayawada, which was, in turn, submitted to the DGP, AP, on 11.09.2024, and the DGP, AP, vide letter, dt. 12.09.2024, submitted the said Report to the Government. After going through the said report and after taking a complaint from Accused No. 1 in Crime No. 90/2024, FIR No. 469/2024 was registered, on 13.09.2024. Thereafter, the Government decided to initiate action against the officials, including the applicant, who had acted on oral instructions of his superior officers as, according to the respondents, it amounts to misconduct under Section 3(1) of the AIS (Conduct) Rules, 1969. Therefore, the applicant has been placed under suspension, vide order, dt. 15.09.2024, and the same was reviewed and extended, from time to time, vide orders, dt. 13.11.2024 and 12.03.2025, which is in force till 09.09.2025.
26. According to the Respondents, after the said enquiry, the complaint has been taken from Accused No.1 in Crime No. 90/2024, against the applicant and other officials, and FIR No. 469/2024 was registered. Against the said FIR, the applicant and other officials approached the Hon‟ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in Criminal Petition No. 6734/2024 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. & 482 of BSSS, seeking anticipatory bail and, after hearing all the parties, anticipatory bail has been granted to the applicant as well as others, vide order, dated 07.01.2025. Further, the applicant also filed Criminal Petition No.4395 of 2025, for quashing FIR No. 469/2024 and the Hon‟ble High Court, having considered the petition of the applicant along with the petitions filed by other accused, vide order, dated 08.05.2025, stayed all further proceedings pursuant to the said FIR. Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.15 18:01:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Page 21 of 38 OA/423/2025
27. It is to be noted that before issuance of the said suspension order, on 13.09.2024, Crime No. 469/2024 was registered against the applicant and others, at the behest of Accused No. 1 in Crime No. 90/2024. Thereafter, the applicant has been placed under suspension, vide order, dt. 15.09.2024, which is impugned in the OA. It is to be noted that, while granting anticipatory bail to the applicant as well as while staying all further proceedings under the FIR, the Hon‟ble High Court made certain observations, which are very important to adjudicate the OA. Therefore, relevant observations in the order, dt. 07.01.2025, passed by the Hon‟ble High Court in Criminal Petition No. 6734/2024, while granting anticipatory bail, are reproduced as under:
"22. All the learned Senior Counsels contended that the very registration of F.I.R. and investigation that was taken up pursuant to it are all legally flawed. On the written information of accused in Crime No.90 of 2024 the police ought not to have registered the present F.I.R. in Crime No.469 of 2024 since the same is barred by law. Learned Senior Counsels for petitioners also contended that there cannot be multiple F.I.Rs. on the facts and in the present case such error was committed by the State and cited T.T.Antony v. State of Kerala®. Further, learned Senior Counsels take support from Section 195(1)(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure and the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Abdul Rehman v. K.M.Anees-ul-Haq7. The purport of the argument is that it is only the Court which entertained Crime No.90 of 2024 that court alone is entitled to file a complaint for prosecution of the accused in the present crime.
23. The response from the State, as argued by the learned Advocate General, is that registration of F.I.R. and the investigation taken up upon it are all legally valid. It is further argued, the bar under Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. was considered by a Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah³. As per the ratio in the said ruling, the proceedings of the present nature are valid.
24. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State strongly contended that Crime No.90 of 2024 and Crime No.469 of 2024 are to be considered as complaint and counter complaint and they are maintainable.
25. After considering the profound submissions made on both sides and the statute and the precedent cited at the bar and after considering the facts available on record in this crime, the following aspects are to be stated:
26. T.T.Antony's case cited for the petitioners was considered and clarified in Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash cited by the learned Advocate General. In Upkar Singh's case, briefly stated, the fact situation was that an incident took place on 20.05.1995. Based on a complaint received, police registered F.I.R. for the offences under Sections 452 and 307 I.P.C. Referring to the same incident, the other party lodged a complaint with learned Magistrate which was referred to police upon which F.I.R.Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.15 18:01:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Page 22 of 38 OA/423/2025 was registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 I.P.C. Thus, registration of two F.I.Rs. about the same crime incident fell for consideration before their Lordships. After analyzing the law and facts their Lordships held that those two F.I.Rs. are in the nature of complaint and counter complaint and they are maintainable. Explaining about the principle laid down in T.T.Antony's case, their Lordships said that after a complaint was registered against the accused concerning an incident any further complaint by the same complainant or others against the same accused concerning the same incident cannot be considered for registration of another case.
27. In the case at hand, in Crime No.90 of 2024, among other allegations, one of the allegation made against Dr. Kadambari Narendra Kumar Jethwani was that she had got prepared a false and forged fabricated document, namely, an agreement for sale of immovable property to the effect that Sri Kukkala Vidya Sagar agreed to sell that immovable property to her. Now that Dr. Kadambari Narendra Kumar Jethwani in her complaint which was registered as Crime No.469 of 2024 states that she did not fabricate any such document and it was all a story and such document was planted into her bag by the police when they arrested her.
28. The said agreement for sale, undisputedly, was subjected to investigation and forensic reports were sought for. Steps were taken by the police as to when stamp papers for preparation of such document were procured. Assuming for a while that the said document is not a genuine document, it is in such cases where a forged and fabricated document prepared outside the Court was produced in the Court the ratio in Iqbal Singh Marwah's case operates. Explaining the bar contained in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, their Lordships said that if a document after being produced into Court is tampered with then the bar operates and only the Court where such document was pending or a Court superior to it was entitled to complain and initiate prosecution. In all other cases where documents were fabricated outside the Court and thereafter they were filed into the Court, the aggrieved party was entitled to initiate prosecution and the bar contained in Section 195 Cr.P.С. would not operate.
29. The present case is not limited to that agreement for sale alone. According to the State, the entire case set up in F.I.R.No.90 of 2024 is a false case. For this purpose, false charge of offence was made with the intent to injure Dr. Kadambari Narendra Kumar Jethwani. For this, evidence was prepared in this regard and using such false evidence the police intend to procure conviction unreasonably. It is for that purpose Sections 193, 195 and 211 I.P.C. are alleged against the present petitioners. Thus, the fulcrum of the case of the prosecution is that a false case is set up in Crime No.90 of 2024 and therefore, they registered Crime No.469 of 2024 and the petitioners are not entitled for bail. It is here one must see the relevant portion of Section 195(1)(b)(i) of Code of Criminal Procedure which reads:
"195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.- (1) No Court shall take cognizance-
(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860), or
(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;
(b)(i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.15 18:01:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Page 23 of 38 OA/423/2025 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or
(ii) ......
(iii) .....
Except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorize in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.
30. From what is extracted above, it is relevant to see the purport of "such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court." The real meaning of any proceeding in any Court requires an elaboration. The word proceeding in the above provision is used in a wider sense. It is not confined to proceedings that come into existence only after a learned Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence. It includes a proceeding held by a Magistrate on receipt of an investigating officer's report made under Section 167(1) Cr.P.C. which is covered by the provision proceeding mentioned in Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. where a person makes a false report to the police against certain persons resulting in they being arrested and being remanded to custody and leading to an application for bail being made by them, the remand proceedings and the bail proceedings are connected with the false report made by the person and the offence committed by him by making it. Then it must be held to be an offence committed in relation to those proceedings. As the proceedings are related to the offence in the manner mentioned above, the offence must be said to have been committed in relation to them. Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. is therefore applicable and no cognizance of the offence can be taken without a complaint by the Magistrate. A complaint by a private person cannot lead to prosecution for such offences. This question at one point of time arose before their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M.L.Sethi v. R.P.Kapur10. However, their Lordships in the light of the case available therein did not choose to decide it and left it open. Subsequently, similar question came up before their Lordships. After considering the entire catena of precedent, their Lordships were pleased to emphatically laid down the law in Abdul Rehman's case cited above. That was a case where on a complaint, F.I.R. was registered for the offence under Section 406 read with 34 1.P.C. and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused arraigned therein applied for anticipatory bail and the same was granted by a learned Sessions Judge. Thereafter the accused therein filed a complaint alleging offence under Section 211 I.P.C. and other provisions of Indian Penal Code contending that the F.I.R. registered against him was a false accusation. It was in such circumstances, the complainant in the first registered crime who was arraigned as accused in the second registered crime had raised a question concerning maintainability of the second F.I.R. and argued the law based on Section 195 Cr.P.C. Answering it their Lordships held that the accused in the first crime having moved the learned Sessions Judge praying for anticipatory bail and having been granted the prayer of anticipatory bail there existed proceedings before that Court. Thereafter, at the behest of the said accused on the allegation of false complaint the second crime emerged. Thus, the second crime is in connection with the proceedings taken up before the Sessions Court. Therefore, the bar contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C. is clearly attracted. It was further recorded that any offence punishable under Section 211 I.P.C. could be taken cognizance of only at the instance of the Court in relation to whose proceedings the same was committed. In the case at hand, this Court in the earlier paragraphs detailed the facts and legal events concerning Crime No.90 of 2024. Pursuant to registration of Crime No.90 of 2024 accused were arrested and a competent Magistrate passed a remand order, thereafter a police custody order and thereafter a bail order. Thus, they Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.15 18:01:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Page 24 of 38 OA/423/2025 are all proceedings before that Court. What is alleged in Crime No.90 of 2024 is to be stated as a false case to frame an innocent then that being an offence effecting public justice, it is only for that Court or any other Court as specified in Section 195 Cr.P.C. to initiate a complaint and prosecute the accused. Therefore, registering Crime No.469 of 2024 at the behest of accused in Crime No.90 of 2024 suffers from serious legal flaw. It can never be disputed that where the criminal justice machinery is moved in a wrong way that is an eminent ground to grant the plea of pre-arrest bail.
31. On considering the entire record and rival submissions, it is clear that nearly 23 witnesses were examined and investigation progressed for nearly four months. Availability of petitioners and their social roots stand undisputed. It is not anybody's case that any one of the petitioners has any criminal antecedents. The legal flaws have already been mentioned in the earlier paragraphs. Therefore, any further discussion on several other aspects argued and legal authorities cited need no mention. In these circumstances, this court is of the considered view that the petitioners have made out their case for prearrest bail. The observations made in this order are meant to decide these petitions and they have no bearing for any other proceedings in the subject matter crime.
32. In the result, all the Criminal Petitions are allowed in the following terms:
1. The petitioners shall join investigation and in the event of arrest, they shall be enlarged on bail on each executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Investigating officer concerned.
2. The petitioners shall inform in advance to the concerned investigating officers about their travel details if any.
3. The petitioners shall always make themselves available for investigation as and when required.
4. They shall not interact or influence the witnesses."
28. Subsequently, in Criminal Petition No.4395/2025, filed by the applicant, under Section 482 CrPC, while recording the facts, vide order, dt. 08.05.2025, while staying the proceedings, the Hon‟ble High Court has observed that :
"On 09.04.2025, this Court passed the following order "Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Accused No. 4 in CrI.P. No. 3898 of 2025 and Sri Vinod Kumar Desh Pande, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Accused No. 5 in CrI.P. No. 3933 of 2025. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is implicated in Crime No. 469 of 2024 for the alleged offences under Sections 192, 211, 218, 220, 354(D), 467, 420, 469, 471 r/w 120(b) of the IPC. The crime was registered on 13.09.2024.
it is submitted that the petitioners in both the quash petitions are working as police officers in the State police. The petitioner in CrI.P. No. 3933 of 2025 is the investigating officer in Crime No. 90 of 2024, which has been registered against the 2nd respondent herein. The petitioner in CrI.P. No. 3898 of 2025 Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.15 18:01:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Page 25 of 38 OA/423/2025 is arraigned as Accused No. 4, and it is submitted that he was not discharging his duty as a police officer in the 1st respondent's establishment at the time of the registration of Crime No. 90 of 2024.
It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that on 29.08.2024, a memo was issued by the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, for enquiring into the allegations of the registration of a false case under Crime No. 90 of 2024. On 10.09.2024, the Assistant Commissioner of Police submitted a report to the Commissioner. It is also submitted that the statement of the 2 nd respondent was recorded on 31.08.2024, 05.09.2024, and 13.09.2024. Thereafter, FIR No. 469 of 2024 against the petitioner and others.
It is submitted that the very genesis of the registration of Crime No. 469 of 2024 is not legal and valid in the eyes of the law. It is also submitted that without Crime No. 90 of 2024 being decided on merits after a full-fledged trial, an allegation regarding the registration of a false crime and the subsequent registration of a fresh crime against the police officers and the legal advisor must be set aside. It is further submitted that the continuation of an investigation in a case that has no foundation should be addressed by this Court. It is also submitted that while registering Crime No. 469 of 2024, the police officer did not conduct any preliminary investigation before registering case. The Commissioner of Police the enquiry report submitted by the Assistant cannot be considered as the preliminary investigation, which is essentially required to be conducted by the investigating officer. The learned Senior Counsel appearing in CrI.P. No. 3933 of 2025 submits that the registration of Crime No. 469 of 2024 is in direct violation of the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Lalitha Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others.
It is submitted that the petitioner, being the investigating officer, has followed the procedure as contemplated under Cr.P.C./BNSS for the purpose of investigation. It is also submitted that the petitioner has obtained a search warrant from the competent court and also required a passport from the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada. It is further submitted that the 2 nd respondent did not file any complaint, raise any objection, or submit any memo to the transit Magistrate when the transit warrant was sought by the investigating officer. The 2"^ respondent also had ample opportunity before the learned Magistrate when the investigating officer filed an application seeking police custody. The petitioner did not grounds or allegations against the petitioner or others in the bail application or in any other proceedings before this Court. As such, there is an abnormal delay of seven months in registering the F.I.R.
It is submitted by both the learned Senior Counsels appearing in the above CrI.Ps that the continuation of the investigation crime against the petitioner is a stigma on his career, and as such, they insist for an interim direction for a stay of all further proceedings in the case. The learned Senior Counsel also relies on Sections 195 and 211 of the Cr.F.C. and submits that the registration of Crime No. 469 of 2024 is in contravention of both provisions of law. The learned Advocate General appearing for the State submits that the police have registered a crime after the receipt of the complaint, and the offences punishable under various provisions of law, as mentioned above, would entitle the police to initiate an investigation. It is further submitted that Section 354(D) cannot be read into Sections 211 and 195 of the Cr.P.C. Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.15 18:01:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Page 26 of 38 OA/423/2025 The learned Senior Counsel places reliance on the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Arockiasamy vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another in SLP (CrI.) No. 5805 of 2023 and State, CBI vs. Sashi Balasubramanian and another((2006) 13 SCC 252) . The allegations are stated to be investigated, and as such, it is submitted that the mere pendency of the FIR against the petitioner cannot be considered a stigma. It is also submitted that the learned Advocate General intends to submit all the material which would enable this Court to pass a reasonable order on merits at the final hearing. It is also submitted by the learned Advocate General that the petitioner had obtained bail before arrest and that the investigating officer in Crime No. 469 of 2024 would not be summoning the petitioner at least till the next date of hearing and that the charge sheet would also not be filed by them. It is submitted that in a similar matter, CrI.P.No. 3649 of 2025 filed by Accused No. 3, an undertaking was given to that effect that the petitioner would not be troubled till the next date of hearing, and he requests time to place the counter on record on behalf of the State.
Considering the submissions, this Court is of the considered view that the undertaking given by the learned Advocate General would suffice for now. Post the matter on 28.04.2025.
In the meanwhile, the learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to take out personal notice to the 2nd respondent through registered post with acknowledgment due and file proof of service in the Registry". Thereafter time was granted on 28.04.2025, 01.05.2025 and today further time is sought for filing counter and for hearing by the learned Advocate General. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners objected for grant of further adjournment and insist for hearing.
The learned Advocate General reiterates that the petitioners shall not be called to the police station, that they shall not be troubled, and that the charge sheet also would not be filed. Further time is sought for filing counters and hearing. Notice on the 2nd respondent is served and proof of service is filed. However, there is no representation for the 2nd respondent.
Considering the submissions of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the registration of Crime No. 469 of 2024 is hit by bar under Section 195 of Cr.PC., the Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down principles relating to prosecutions under Section 195 Cr.P.C., and passed detailed principles at para 21 of the judgment in the matter of M.R. Ajayan vs. State of Kerala and Others (2024 SCC Online SC 3373). Considering the submission that the very registration of Crime No. 469 of 2024 is under challenge on the ground that the procedure contemplated under Section 195 Cr.PC. was not followed, this matter would require consideration, as such there shall be stay of all further proceedings in so far as the petitioner is concerned in Crime No. 469 of 2024 on the file of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, Vijayawada, NTR District."
29. Thus, it is quite clear from the orders of the Hon‟ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh that the Government does not have power to entertain such a complaint from Accused No.1 in Crime No.90/2024 and when the Hon‟ble High Court is Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.15 18:01:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Page 27 of 38 OA/423/2025 seized of the matter in respect of registration of such a crime, it is not out of context to state that, placing the applicant under suspension by accusing him of misconduct, when he had acted on the oral instructions of his superiors, is nothing but colourable exercise of power. It is not only beyond the jurisdiction of the Government, but also against law, to treat the said action of the applicant as misconduct. In this regard, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in Union of India & Others v. J. Ahmed, (1979) 2 SCC 286, observed that "Misconduct" means, misconduct arising from ill motive; acts of negligence, errors of judgment, or innocent mistake, do not constitute such misconduct."
30. Further, while dealing with the matter of suspension, we have come across similar circumstances in OA No. 273 of 2023, filed by Mr. A.B. Venkateswara Rao, IPS, wherein, with the change in Government, the official was victimized and by misusing the power and law, the officer was placed under suspension. While setting aside the suspension, this Tribunal observed thus:
"The sequence of the events between 03.05.2019 and 08.02.2020 after new Government for the State of Andhra Pradesh assumed office, the applicant who was serving as Director General, ACB was transferred and was not given any posting whatsoever from May, 2019 onwards. On 02.02.2020 the Director General of Police writes to the Additional director General, CID to investigate and submit a report with regard to the said alleged irregularities in a tender relating to procurement and finalisation of certain equipment. The enquiry was completed and on receipt of the report of the said enquiry, which was forwarded on 07.02.2020 by the Director General of Police to the State Government on 08.02.2020. On the basis of the said report, the applicant was suspended. The said suspension order was challenged by the applicant. However, this Tribunal, in OA No.149/2020, vide order dated 17.03.2020 declined the relief. The order of this Tribunal has been challenged by the applicant in WP No.8185/2020. The Hon'ble High Court has considered the entire facts and records as well as the submissions of both sides along with the citations relied upon by both parties and the order of this Tribunal in depth, the first suspension was under "Rule-3(1), the Hon'ble High Court noticed that the reasons for the conclusion are lacking in the impugned (first) suspension order. The reasons, the material and the conclusion, the thought process of the court will be in the reasons and failure to give "reasons", in the opinion of the Hon'ble High Court vitiates the Tribunal's order and the reasons would have enabled the Hon'ble High Court to appreciate the conclusions of the Tribunal. Since the Hon‟ble High Court has considered involvement of the applicant, entire material in respect of the said tenders process.
The Hon'ble High Court further observed as under:
Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.15 18:01:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Page 28 of 38 OA/423/2025 xxx. xxxx xxxx xxx xxxx xxxx Rule 3 of the 1969 Rules, talks of suspension. The factors, which are necessary for placing an Officer under suspension are (a) the circumstances of the case, (b) the nature of the charges, and (c) satisfaction, necessity and desirability. This Court is reiterating that for an Officer to be placed under suspension, by virtue of a plain language interpretation of this case, the Authority should be satisfied basing upon the circumstances of the case, the evidence collected till then and the nature of the charges that the Officer should be placed under suspension. Therefore, there should be some material for the Appointing Authority to come to a conclusion about the nature of the charges and the circumstances of the case. The further satisfaction for keeping the Officer under suspension and/or continuing him should also be based on some material.
XXX
27. It is also to be noted that, if at all applicant is tried to influence the witnesses in any way indulging or interfered with the investigation and on these grounds, the Respondents can offer the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant since the applicant himself has breach the condition of pre-arrest bail. However, the Respondents have not exhausted the remedy available to them under law....xxxx Xxx xxx xxx
33. In view of the above discussion, under the facts and circumstances, the entire action of the respondents is not justified and not sustainable under Rule - 3 (3) of All India Service (D&A) Rules. Therefore the impugned Order dated 28.06.2022 passed by the Respondent No.1 is hereby quashed and set aside. The Respondent No.1 is directed to re-instate the applicant into service forthwith and the applicant shall be put back to the duty and shall be paid all pay & allowances with all other consequential benefits for which he is eligible and entitled.
34. Accordingly, the OA is allowed in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs."
The case of the applicant is also similar, in so far as his suspension is concerned. It is also to be noted that, for the first time, we are coming across such type of allegation that the officer has acted as per the superior officials‟ oral instructions promptly. Most of the time, the allegations by the Government are that the officers do not act even upon written instructions.
31. As seen from the record, it is not in dispute that when Crime No. 90/2024 was registered by the Ibrahimpatnam PS, the applicant was working as DCP, NTR Commissionerate, Vijayawada, but he was not the Incharge officer. He had only acted upon the oral instructions by the then DGP, Intelligence, and the then CP, Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.15 18:01:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Page 29 of 38 OA/423/2025 Vijayawada, to monitor the case and liaise with the officials considering the serious allegations recorded in the FIR towards extortion of money and the applicant, being an IPS officer, in the rank of DCP, and working for 14 years, is quite competent to maintain law and order in a disciplined force.
32. It is to be noted that, the Hon‟ble High Court, while taking cognizance of registration of Crime No.469/2024, at the behest of Accused No.1 in Crime No. 90/2024, who has been made the defacto complainant to register the said crime, has stayed further proceedings and the Hon‟ble High Court is seized of the matter, and has observed that registration of the said crime suffers from legal flaws. Therefore, taking cognizance of the complaint of Accused No.1 in Crime No. 90/2024 and, issuing the suspension order and further extension orders by the respondents, is not justified. After registration of the FIR, the matter was taken before the Hon‟ble High Court by the applicant as well as other accused in Crime No. 469/2024 and the same was well within the knowledge of the Government. Still, showing utter disregard to the order of the Hon‟ble High Court and in contravention of the same, Respondents have initiated action against the applicant. Therefore, the entire action of the respondents in placing the applicant under suspension and extending the suspension period further, till 09.09.2025, is unwarranted and the same is not sustainable under the law.
33. It is also to be noted that the learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh, represented the Government before the Hon‟ble High Court in the same matter and, after going through the reply of the State Government and after hearing the arguments of the learned AG, the Hon‟ble High Court has passed the above referred order. After the observations of the Hon‟ble High Court in their order, it is expected of the Government not to extend the suspension period under the so called review. In fact, the Government, while extending the suspension of the applicant Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.15 18:01:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Page 30 of 38 OA/423/2025 under the so called reviews, has not even shown respect towards the said observations of the Hon‟ble High Court. Therefore, the act of the Government amounts to contempt of Court in making such observations in the review, dt. 12.03.2025. In fact, when the applicant has been granted anticipatory bail and the Respondent Government was fully aware of the same, the applicant, who was waiting for his posting, could not have indulged in such activities as recorded by the Review Committee. If, really, the applicant had done so, contrary to the conditions imposed by the Hon‟ble High Court while granting anticipatory bail, the respondents had the option to approach the Hon‟ble High Court for cancellation of his anticipatory bail. Rather than availing such remedy, they just chose to extend the suspension period for a further period of six months. In fact, on the face of record, the said suspension is on flimsy grounds and by way of colourable exercise of power, with a malafide intention.
When the applicant, after acting as per the said oral instruction of his superiors and, thereafter, as per his transfer, he had reported to the new place of posting at Vizag on 06.03.2024, it is not the case of respondents that the applicant was interfering or indulging at any time in the investigation being carried out in Crime No. 90/2024 at Vijayawada. Furthermore, when Crime No. 469/2024 was registered at the behest of the defacto complainant, who is Accused No.1 in Crime No. 90/2024, neither she nor the other two accused have ventilated any grievances against any of the police officials, including the applicant and others, either, before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai, while granting transit remand, or before the regular Criminal Court, at Vijayawada or before the Hon‟ble High Court in the Criminal Petition No. 2732/2024, filed by the defacto complainant, who is Accused No.1 in Crime No. 90/2024.
Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.15 18:01:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Page 31 of 38 OA/423/2025
34. In the context of suspension, we have perused the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty, (1994) 4 SCC 126, cited by the applicant and the relevant portion is extracted as under:
"13. It is thus settled law that normally when an appointing authority or the disciplinary authority seeks to suspend an employee, pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or pending investigation into grave charges of misconduct or defalcation of funds or serious acts of omission and commission, the order of suspension would be passed after taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct sought to be inquired into or investigated and the nature of the evidence placed before the appointing authority and on application of the mind by disciplinary authority. Appointing authority or disciplinary authority should consider the above aspects and decide whether it is expedient to keep an employee under suspension pending aforesaid action. It would not be as an administrative routine or an automatic order to suspend an employee. It should be on consideration of the gravity of the alleged misconduct or the nature of the allegations imputed to the delinquent employee.xxxx"
The applicant further relied upon the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Agarwal, (2013) 16 SCC 147, in support of his contention that an order of suspension should only be passed when there is a strong prima facie case against the delinquent after considering the gravity of the alleged misconduct. The relevant portion "9. The power of suspension should not be exercised in an arbitrary manner and without any reasonable ground or as vindictive misuse of power. Suspension should be made only in a case where there is a strong prima facie case against the delinquent employee and the allegations involving moral turpitude, grave misconduct or indiscipline or refusal to carry out the orders of superior authority are there, or there is a strong prima facie case against him, if proved, would ordinarily result in reduction in rank, removal or dismissal from service. Xxx ."
35. It is also to be noted that the respondents are trying to make out the reasons for suspension on the basis of the so-called media reports. Neither in the complaint of the defecto complainant, who is Accused No.1, nor in the inquiry report, submitted by Smt. Sravanthi Roy, ACP, there is any whisper about the so-called media reports about harassment caused by the police officials to Accused No.1 in Crime No. 90/2024. Therefore, this is nothing but a story concocted by the Respondents and the allegations raised against the applicant are baseless. Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.15 18:01:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Page 32 of 38 OA/423/2025 Respondents have not placed or referred to any such media report, either, before the Hon‟ble High Court or before us.
36. It is also to be noted that while making appointment of the Enquiry Officer to enquire into the matter involving high ranking officials, an officer junior to the said officials cannot be appointed as enquiry officer. This is nothing but demoralizing the applicant at the hands of the administration, which is in contravention of the guidelines issued by the Government of India, Cabinet Secretariat, Department of Personnel, vide OM No. 7/1/70/Est.(A), dt. 06.01.1971, besides being contrary to law.
37. On the face of record, the officer acted as per the instructions of superior officials, as admitted by the respondents. It has been admitted by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that the official, who instructed the applicant, is the voice of CMO, and the entire action started under the said Crime No. 90/2024, dt. 02.02.2024. But, after seven months, taking the complaint from Accused No.1, making her defacto complainant by the Respondents and registering Crime No. 469/2024 and placing the applicant under suspension and further, continuing the said suspension for almost one year, is nothing but victimization of the officer/ applicant by making accusations against the officials. It is also to be noted that the said suspension order was issued under Rule 3(1) of AIS DA Rules, 1969, and as per Rule 3 (1B) of the said Rules, wherein the charge being other than corruption, suspension cannot be continued beyond one year. Admittedly, in the said matter, charge memo under disciplinary action was issued to the applicant in November, 2024, and till date, neither the IO nor the PO has been appointed. According to the said provision, enquiry itself has to be completed within one year from the date of suspension or, otherwise, suspension will automatically be revoked. Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.15 18:01:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Page 33 of 38 OA/423/2025 CONCLUSION:
38. (A) The media triggered Inquiry:
Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Quamarul Islam vs S.K. Kanta And Ors, 1994 (3) SCC(SUPP) 5, has held that press clippings are not evidence. The Supreme Court has held in Union of India v. Upendra Singh, (1994) 3 SCC 357) that charges must be based on definite allegations, not conjectures. Further, in State of M.P. v. Bani Singh, (1990 Supp SCC 738), the Supreme Court held that belated initiation of proceedings without justification is arbitrary.
In the present case, the inquiry leading to suspension was initiated almost eight months after the arrest, primarily based on media reports alleging irregularities. Administrative or disciplinary action cannot be founded solely on press reports. Further, the unexplained delay of nearly 8 months in acting upon the alleged irregularities indicates lack of bona fides. Accordingly, Suspension in this case appears to be a pre-emptive measure to facilitate contemplated DAR, which is impermissible.
(B) Acting on oral orders of a superior officer in emergent law and order situations is an integral part of police functioning. Once the FIR was duly registered and remand was granted by the competent Court, the legality of the action stood judicially validated. The mere absence of subsequent written confirmation of such oral instructions cannot, by itself, be construed as misconduct.
Further, it is not the case of the Respondents that the superior authorities, namely, the then Director General of Police, Intelligence, and the then Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, have denied having deputed the applicant for coordination and liaison at Mumbai. In these circumstances, the so-called oral orders cannot be doubted or disbelieved, nor can bona fide compliance with them be treated as a lapse.
Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.15 18:01:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Page 34 of 38 OA/423/2025 (C) Non-claiming of Travelling Allowance:
The Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Union of India v. J. Ahmed, 1979 2 SCC 286, para 11 which reads as
11. ..... Lack of efficiency, failure to attain the highest standard of administrative ability or mere error of judgment would not constitute misconduct.....
Further, The Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held in the case State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty, (1994) 4 SCC 126 "13.... an administrative routine or an automatic order to suspend an employee. It should be on consideration of the gravity of the alleged misconduct or the nature of the allegations..."
Therefore, Non-Claiming of Travelling Allowance, in the given circumstances, does not disclose any element of dishonesty or misconduct. Hence, reliance on Non-Claiming of Travelling Allowance bills as a ground for suspension is wholly unsustainable.
(D) The apprehension of influencing the disciplinary case or tampering with evidence is wholly unfounded. Pursuant to G.O.Rt. No. 1245 dated 11.07.2024, the applicant was directed to report to the DGP (HoPF) for further posting, and, from then onwards, he has since remained in the status of „waiting for posting‟. In that capacity, he had no access to records or witnesses connected with the case.
Further, the Hon‟ble High Court has stayed all further proceedings in Crime No. 469/2024, which itself was instituted at the instance of Accused No. 1 in Crime No. 90/2024. In these circumstances, there can be no apprehension of interference with investigation, inquiry, or influencing any witnesses by the applicant. Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.15 18:01:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Page 35 of 38 OA/423/2025 Therefore, the Suspension and extension of the suspension, in such a situation, appears not only arbitrary and punitive in nature, but also contrary to principles of fairness and natural justice.
(E) The second FIR No:469/2024 lodged by the accused in the first FIR No:
90/2024, alleging illegal arrest and harassment, is legally unsustainable. Such grievances, if any, could and ought to have been raised before the Competent Court, at the stage of remand in FIR No. 90/2024; however, the Competent Court, upon consideration, granted judicial custody. Accordingly, the legality of the arrest thus stood judicially validated. The subsequent counter-complaint is, therefore, an afterthought and cannot constitute the basis for any action against the officer.
39. In the instant case, on the face of record, the reasons for suspension of the applicant are not at all maintainable and the suspension order issued by the respondents and its continuation is not justified. In fact, while granting anticipatory bail and staying the entire proceedings in Crime No. 469/2024, which was registered at the behest of the defacto complainant, who is Accused No.1 in Crime No.90/2024, the Hon‟ble High Court has observed that the very registration of the second FIR is legally flawed. The applicant has acted only on the instructions of his superior officers, which is not denied and, therefore, the action of the applicant cannot be said to be misconduct.
40. It is to be noted that, as submitted by the applicant, though the suspension order was issued on 15.09.2024, even after almost one year, there is no progress in the pending enquiry/ investigation against the applicant and the same is borne out by the counter affidavit. As held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in Param Raj Singh Umaranangal v. Union of India, one cannot be kept under suspension for an indefinite period under the garb of pending enquiry/ criminal investigation in criminal proceedings. Thus, this Tribunal is compelled to observe that the Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.15 18:01:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Page 36 of 38 OA/423/2025 proceedings initiated against the applicant are vindictive in nature and after change of the Government in June, 2024, these proceedings have been initiated against him. Though the applicant was not in active posting from May/ June, 2024, suddenly, after waiting for six months, just a day after the report, dt. 12.09.2024 of the DGP, AP, the complainant also gave the complaint/FIR on 13.09.2024, which is highly suspicious and questionable. Further, as contended by the applicant, as per Rule 4 of AIS DA Rules, the suspending authority has to conduct a periodic review of the subsistence allowance given to the MoS when the suspension exceeds three months, which was not done in this case, according to the applicant.
41. We have carefully perused the judgments cited by the respondents and we are of the view that the ratio laid down in the said judgments is not applicable, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case i.e., Crime No. 469/2024 which is the very basis for initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, is under challenge before the Hon‟ble High Court.
42. In view of the facts recorded above, the action of the respondents in placing the applicant under suspension, vide impugned order, dt. 15.09.2024, and further extending the suspension till 09.09.2025, is not justified, and the same is illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law.
43. IN THE RESULT:
The impugned suspension order, dt. 15.09.2024, and extension of suspension, vide orders, dt. 13.11.2024 & 12.03.2025, are hereby quashed and set aside.
Respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant and issue posting orders, forthwith, with all consequential benefits, for which he is otherwise eligible and entitled.Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.15 18:01:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Page 37 of 38 OA/423/2025
44. Accordingly, the OA is allowed in terms as above. There shall be no order as to costs.
(VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI) (DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
/evr/
Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.15 18:01:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Page 38 of 38