Telangana High Court
E. Samuel John vs The State Of Telangana on 17 July, 2025
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WRIT PETITION No.1425 OF 2023
Between:
Sri E. Samuel John ....Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana and others
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 17.07.2025
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes
marked to Law Reporters/Journals?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to : Yes.
see the fair copy of the Judgment?
______________________________
MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
2
SN,J
wp_1425_2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WRIT PETITION No.1425 OF 2023
% 17.07.2025
Between:
# Sri E. Samuel John
... Petitioner
And
$ The State of Telangana and others
... Respondents
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Ch.Venkat Raman
^Counsel for Respondents: learned AGP for Services
(Home)
? Cases Referred:
i) (2006) 5 SCC 446
ii) (2024) 1 SCC 175
iii) (1999) 3 SCC 679
iv) 1999(1) A.P.L.J. 189(HC)
v) (2010) 9 SCC 496
3
SN,J
wp_1425_2023
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.1425 OF 2023
ORDER:
Heard Sri Ch.Venkat Raman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services (Home) appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:
"...to issue to a writ, order or direction and more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the Proceedings Rc. No. TSPF/A3/PR/17/2020-22 - O.o. No. A-22/2022, dated 25.01.2022, issued by the 2nd respondent, awarded "RTSP by 2 stages with cumulative effect for 2 years" as punishable under Rule 9 of Telangana State Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991 and the period spent under suspension of 509 days from 06.06.2019 F.N. to 27.10.2021 A.N. is treated as "Not on Duty"
and the period of unauthorized absence of 43 days from 23.4.2020 to 05.06.2020 AN is treated as "LWP", which was confirmed by the 1st respondent, vide Memo No.3890/Ser.III/A1/2022, dated 04.07.2022, communicated vide Rc.No.SPF/A3/PR/17/2020-22, dated 15.07.2022, inspite of criminal proceedings are pending on the same charge in Crime No. 164 of 2020, dated 24.4.2020, as illegal, improper, arbitrary, unjust, irrational, contrary to the Telangana Civil Service (Classification, Control Appeal) Rules, 1991, 4 SN,J wp_1425_2023 violative of principles of natural justice, violative of Arts. 14, 16, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and unconstitutional, by holding that the initiation of entire process of enquiry conducted by the 3rd respondent is not in accordance of the Telangana Civil Service (Classification, Control Appeal) Rules, 1991, proving the Charges I and II against the petitioner is void abinitio, null and void and nonest in the eye of law, and to pass."
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner, while serving as Assistant Commandant, TSPF, KTPS, Palvoncha, was implicated in Crime No. 164 of 2020 for alleged theft of teak wood, based on a complaint made by one M. Purushotham Reddy. The petitioner was suspended on 06.06.2020, and a departmental enquiry was initiated and subsequently charges were framed, and the Enquiry Officer held them as proved. Despite the criminal case being under investigation and no charge sheet filed, the 2nd respondent vide order dated 25.01.2022 imposed a punishment of reduction of two stages in time scale for two years, treating the suspension period as "Not on Duty" and absence as "LWP". The petitioner's appeal was rejected vide order dated 04.07.2022 by the 1st respondent without valid reasons. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
5
SN,J wp_1425_2023
4. PERUSED THE RECORD:
A) The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 25.01.2022 vide Rc.No.TSPF/A3/PR/17/2020-
22 of the respondent No.2-The Director General of Police, Telangana State Protection Force, Secunderabad issued to the petitioner herein is extracted hereunder:
"He is therefore awarded "RTSP by 2 stages with cumulative effect for 2 years' as punishable under Rule 9 of TSCS (CC&A) Rules 1991. The period spent under suspension of (509) days from 06.06.2020 FN to 27.10.2021 AN is treated as 'Not on duty' and the period of unauthorized absence of (43) days from 23.04.2020 AN to 05.06.2020 AN is treated as LWP'.
It is certified that the procedure laid down in Rule 20 of TSCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991, is scrupulously followed.
Acknowledge the receipt of the
proceeding."
B) The relevant portion of the impugned order
dated 04.07.2022 vide Memo No.3890/Ser.III/A1/ 2022 of the respondent No.1 addressed to the respondent No.2-the Director General of Police, Telangana State Protection Force, Secunderabad, is extracted hereunder:6
SN,J wp_1425_2023 "The attention of the Director General, Telangana Special Protection Force, Secunderabad is invited to the reference 1 cited wherein Sri E.Samuel John, Assistant Commandant, TSPF, RTS, Ramagundam (formerly of TSPF, KTPS Paloncha} had preferred his Appeal Petition to the Government against the punishment of "Withholding of increment of pay for a period of one year with cumulative effect", imposed by the Disciplinary authority of TSSPF, Secunderabad.
2. Accordingly, Government, after careful examination of the Appeal Petition filed by Sri E.Samuel John, Assistant Commandant, TSPF, RTS, Ramagundam (formerly of TSPF, KTPS Paloncha) TSSPF with the remarks/records furnished by the Director General, Telangana Special Protection Force, Secunderabad, hereby reject the same, as it is not feasible for consideration as per the existing Rules, since there are no grounds to consider his request.
3. The Director General, Telangana Special Protection Force, Secunderabad, is requested to intimate the same to the applicant, under proper acknowledgement."
C) The relevant portion of the proceedings of the respondent No.2-The Director General of Police, Telangana State Protection Force, Secunderabad dated 15.07.2022 vide R.C.No.SPF/A3/PR/17/2020- 22 issued to the petitioner herein is extracted hereunder:
"The representation/Appeal petition of Sri E. Samuel John, Assistant Commandant TSPF, RTS Ramagundam (formerly KTPS 7 SN,J wp_1425_2023 Paloncha) has been examined by the Government vide reference cited and rejected the same, since it is not feasible for consideration as per the existing rules. A copy of the said Government memo is enclosed herewith.
Acknowledge the receipt of the
Government memo immediately."
D) The counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of
the respondents 1 to 3 and in particular, paragraph Nos.24 and 25 are extracted hereunder:
"24. In reply to paragraph 21 & 22, it is denied that the appeal of the Petitioner was rejected by the 1" Respondent without assigning any valid or substantial reasons. The Order dated 25.01.2022 is a speaking order which deals with the contentions raised by the Petitioner and imposes the punishment thought fit by the Disciplinary Authority. The 1st Respondent through Memo dated 04.07.2022 has rightly dismissed the Appeal filed by the Petitioner by taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case. It is denied that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is excessive and disproportionate. It is submitted that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is proportionate to the nature of the position held by the Petitioner and the breach of duty committed by the Petitioner.
25. In reply to paragraph 23 it is denied that the Order dated 25.01.2022 passed by the 2nd Respondent and the Memo dated 04.07.2022 issued by the 1" Respondent are in any manner illegal or contrary to the provisions of the service rules or in violation of the principles of natural 8 SN,J wp_1425_2023 justice. In light of the above, it is humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioners and pass any other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case."
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:-
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner had submitted his detailed explanation dated 23.07.2020 to respondent No.2, requesting that the charges against him be dropped.
However, the impugned order vide Rc.No.TSPF/A3/PR/17/2020-22 dated 25.01.2022 was
passed against the petitioner by respondent No.2, imposing a cumulative punishment for a period of two years under Rule 9 of the TSCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991. Further, the suspension period of 509 days from 06.06.2020 (FN) to 27.10.2021 (AN) was treated as 'Not on Duty', and the period of unauthorized absence of 43 days from 23.04.2020 (AN) to 05.06.2020 (AN) was treated as Leave Without Pay (LWP).
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that, aggrieved by the impugned order 9 SN,J wp_1425_2023 dated 25.01.2022 passed by respondent No.2, the petitioner preferred an appeal to respondent No.1. However, respondent No.1, vide impugned proceedings dated 04.07.2022, rejected the appeal without assigning any reasons, except stating that it is not feasible for consideration as per the existing provisions, since there are no grounds to consider the petitioner's request. The said order was communicated to the petitioner through the impugned letter dated 15.07.2022 of the 2nd respondent, thereby upholding the order of respondent No.2 dated 25.01.2022.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the alleged involvement of the petitioner in the theft of teakwood stocked beside shed No.07 at KTPS, Palvoncha on 14.04.2020 in Cr.No.164/2020, under Section 380, 409 read with 34 IPC of Palvoncha Town Police Station was the very basis for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and for passing of the orders against the petitioner by the respondent No.1 & 2 herein which are impugned by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition and that judgment had been delivered on 30.06.2025 by the III 10 SN,J wp_1425_2023 Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Criminal Court for Agency Areas), Kothagudem, in C.C. No.10 of 2023 arising out of Crime No.164 of 2020 of P.S. Palvoncha Town, wherein the petitioner was acquitted.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that, in view of the clear findings in favour of the petitioner in the judgment dated 30.06.2025 in C.C. No.10 of 2023 in Crime No.164 of 2020 of P.S. Palvoncha Town, on the file of the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Criminal Court for Agency Areas), Kothagudem, the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present Writ Petition.
9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services (Home) appearing on behalf of the respondents places reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit, in particular, paragraph Nos.4, 5, 8, 10, 16, and 24, and contends that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought in the present writ petition, as the final report in the disciplinary proceedings held the petitioner as guilty of the charges leveled against the petitioner vide Memorandum of 11 SN,J wp_1425_2023 charge, dated 10.07.2020 issued to the petitioner, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
10. A bare perusal of the judgment, dated 30.06.2025 passed in C.C.No.10 of 2023 arising out of Cr.No.164 of 2020 of P.S. Palvoncha Town indicates that the said Court acquitted the petitioner observing that no case was made out for convicting the accused persons in the absence of cogent and clear evidence, and Court further held that the prosecution failed to prove the commission of the offence by the petitioner and other accused beyond all reasonable doubt, resulting in the acquittal of the petitioner along with ten others, and therefore, this Court opines that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, which were primarily based on the said Crime No.164 of 2020 registered on 14.04.2020, and the impugned order dated 25.01.2022 passed by respondent No.2 and mechanically upheld by respondent No.1 on 04.07.2022 and communicated to the petitioner through the impugned letter dated 15.07.2022 of the 2nd respondent needs to be 12 SN,J wp_1425_2023 reconsidered by the respondents herein, since bare perusal of Memorandum of charge issued by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner, dated 10.07.2020 (referred to and extracted above) clearly indicates that it is on the ground that crime No.164/2020 under Section 380, 409 read with 34 IPC of Palvoncha Town, Police Station had been registered against the petitioner that the departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, which however ended in acquittal of the petitioner vide order, dated 30.06.2025 on the court of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Criminal Court for Agency Area, Kothagudem), after a regular trial and on contest.
11. A bare perusal of the charges in the disciplinary proceedings indicates that they are identical to the charges in the criminal case C.C.No.10 of 2023 on the file of the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem in Cr.No.164/2020 of Palvoncha Town Police Station registered against the petitioner.
13
SN,J wp_1425_2023 The memorandum of charge issued by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner vide Rc. No. TSPF/A3/TR/17/2020, dated 10.07.2020, farming the following charges is extracted hereunder:
"Article -1: That the said Sri E. Samuel John, Asst. Commandant, (U/s), TSPF, KTPS, Paloncha being a public servant committed criminal Breach of trust and involved in the theft of teak wood stocked beside Shed No. 07 at KTPS, Paloncha on 14.04.2020 in Cr. No. 164/2020, U/s 380, 409 r/w 34 IPC of Paloncha Town Police Station. With the said stolen teak wood, he got prepared wooden door and window frames for his house being constructed at Hyderabad city. Consequently, he was placed under suspension vide Rc. No. TSPF/A3/PR/17/2020, O.o. No. A- 148/2020, dated 06.06.2020.
Article II: That the said Sri E. Samuel John, Asst. Commandant, (U/s), TSPF, KTPS, Paloncha became AWL w.e.f. on 23.04.2020 AN. Consequently, he was placed under suspension vide Rc. No. TSPF/A3/PR/17/2020, O.o. No. A- 148/2020, dated 06.06.2020."
The charge framed against the petitioner was admittedly as borne on record, due to the alleged involvement of petitioner in a theft of teakwood stocked beside shed No.07 of KTPS, Palvoncha resulting in instituting of a criminal case against the petitioner, this Court opines that since the criminal 14 SN,J wp_1425_2023 case itself registered against the petitioner was found to be untenable in Court of Law, the very basis of the charge had been in fact knocked out. Therefore, in view of the fact that the petitioner was acquitted from the said Criminal Case by order dated 30.06.2025 in C.C. No.10 of 2023, this Court opines that the same cannot be sustained and the respondent No.2 is bound to reconsider the punishment imposed against the petitioner vide decision of the 2nd respondent, dated 25.01.2022, duly taking into consideration the verdict, dated 30.06.2025 in C.C.No.10 of 2023 passed in favour of the petitioner on the file of III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem
12. The observations of the Apex Court in few judgments and a judgment of Division Bench of this Court considering the sustainability of punishment imposed on an employee concerned in case of Departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings being based on same set of facts are extracted hereunder:-
15
SN,J wp_1425_2023 A) The Apex Court, in the judgment of "G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.," reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446, dated 10.05.2006 held that if the charges in the disciplinary proceedings are identical to those in the criminal case, and the employee has been honourably acquitted in the criminal case, then continuing with the disciplinary proceedings on the same charges would not be justified and the relevant paragraph Nos.30 and 31 of the said order are extracted hereunder:
30. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents are distinguishable on facts and on law. In this case, the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in a departmental case against the appellant and the charge before the criminal court are one and the same. It is true that the nature of charge in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal case is grave. The nature of the case launched against the appellant on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during enquiry and investigation and as reflected in the charge-sheet, factors mentioned are one and the same. In other words, charges, evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and the same. In the present case, criminal and departmental proceedings have already noticed or granted on the same set of facts, namely, raid conducted at the appellant's residence, recovery of 16 SN,J wp_1425_2023 articles therefrom. The Investigating Officer Mr V.B. Raval and other departmental witnesses were the only witnesses examined by the enquiry officer who by relying upon their statement came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case and the criminal court on the examination came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the guilt alleged against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant by its judicial pronouncement with the finding that the charge has not been proved. It is also to be noticed that the judicial pronouncement was made after a regular trial and on hot contest.
Under these circumstances, it would be unjust and unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings to stand.
31. In our opinion, such facts and evidence in the departmental as well as criminal proceedings were the same without there being any iota of difference, the appellant should succeed. The distinction which is usually proved between the departmental and criminal proceedings on the basis of the approach and burden of proof would not be applicable in the instant case. Though the finding recorded in the domestic enquiry was found to be valid by the courts below, when there was an honourable acquittal of the employee during the pendency of the proceedings challenging the dismissal, the same requires to be taken note of and the decision in Paul Anthony case [(1999) 3 SCC 679 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 810] will apply. We, therefore, hold that the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed."
17
SN,J wp_1425_2023 In the present case, the verdict in favour of the petitioner in C.C.No.10 of 2023 arising out of Cr.No.164 of 2020 delivered on 30.06.2025 by the III Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Criminal Court for Agency Areas) Kothagudem also was pronounced on merits after due trial and on contest. B) The Apex Court, in the judgment dated 30.03.199 reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 in M.Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. in particular, at paragraph No.34 observed as under:
34. There is yet another reason for discarding the whole of the case of the respondents. As pointed out earlier, the criminal case as also the departmental proceedings were based on identical set of facts, namely, 'the raid conducted at the appellant's residence and recovery of incriminating articles therefrom.' The findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, a copy of which has been placed before us, indicate that the charges framed against the appellant were sought to be proved by Police Officers and Panch witnesses, who had raided the house of the appellant and had effected recovery.
They were the only witnesses examined by the Inquiry Officer and the Inquiry Officer, relying upon their statements, came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case but the court, on a consideration of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that no search was conducted nor was any recovery made from the residence of the 18 SN,J wp_1425_2023 appellant. The whole case of the prosecution was thrown out and the appellant was acquitted. In this situation, therefore, where the appellant is acquitted by a judicial pronouncement with the finding that the "raid and recovery" at the residence of the appellant were not proved, it would be unjust, unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded at the ex- parte departmental proceedings, to stand. In the present case, it is clearly observed in the judgment dated 30.06.2025 in C.C.No.10 of 2023 in Cr.No.164/2020 of P.S.Palvoncha Town on the file of the Court of III Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Criminal Court for Agency areas) Kothagudem that the prosecution has failed to prove the Commission of offense by the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. C) The Apex Court, in the judgment dated 04.12.2023 reported in (2024) 1 SCC 175 in "Ramlal Vs. State of Rajasthan and others", in particular, paragraph Nos.28 and 29 observed as under:
28. Expressions like "benefit of doubt" and "honourably acquitted", used in judgments are not to be understood as magic incantations. A court of law will not be carried away by the mere use of such terminology. In the present case, the Appellate Judge has recorded that Ext. P-3, the original mark sheet carries the date of birth as 21-4-1972 and the same has also been proved by the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. The conclusion that the 19 SN,J wp_1425_2023 acquittal in the criminal proceeding was after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge can only be arrived at after a reading of the judgment in its entirety. The Court in judicial review is obliged to examine the substance of the judgment and not go by the form of expression used.
29. We are satisfied that the findings of the Appellate Judge in the criminal case clearly indicate that the charge against the appellant was not just, "not proved" -- in fact the charge even stood "disproved" by the very prosecution evidence. As held by this Court, a fact is said to be "disproved"
when, after considering the matters before it, the court either believes that it does not exist or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist. A fact is said to be "not proved" when it is neither "proved" nor "disproved" (see Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P. [Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P., (1990) 3 SCC 190 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 378] ). In the present case, at the relevant paragraph No.23 of the judgment, dated 30.06.2025 in C.C.No.10 of 2023 in Cr.No.164/2020 of P.S.Palvoncha Town on the file of the Court of III Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Criminal Court for Agency areas) Kothagudem, it is observed as under:-
23. According to the statement of PW.4 confession and seizure panchanama was 20 SN,J wp_1425_2023 conducted at police station. Whereas, as per the statements of PW.5 the same was conducted as KTPS V and VI stage gates. There is the contradiction in the statement of P.W4 and 5.
Therefore, the court cannot place reliance in the evidence of PW.4 and 5, who made contradictory statements agaisnt each other on material particulars. Moreover, the prosecution failed to produce the CCTV footage to establish their version of committing of offense by the accused persons. The evidence of the prosecution became suspicious. Therefore, no relevance can be placed on their statements. So as to make out of a case for convicting the accused persons in the absence of cogent and clear evidence and the prosecution has failed to prove the commission of offense by the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused No.1 to 11 are deserved to be acquitted.
This Court is satisfied that in the teeth of the above finding of the Court in favour of the petitioner herein, the disciplinary proceedings and the orders passed thereon cannot be allowed to stand and the respondent Nos.1 & 2 are bound to reconsider the punishment imposed against the petitioner vide Rc.No.TSPF/A3/PR/17/2020-22, dated 25.01.2022 of the 2nd respondent, duly taking into consideration the observations made in favour of the petitioner vide judgment, dated 21 SN,J wp_1425_2023 30.06.2025 in C.C.No.10 of 2023 in Cr.No.164/2020 of P.S.Palvoncha Town on the file of the Court of III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Criminal Court for Agency areas, Kothagudem) and also the observations of the Apex Court in the judgments (referred to and extracted above) D) The Division Bench judgment of this Court in A.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. T.Venkatapati reported in 1999(1) A.P.L.J. 189(HC), in W.A.No.124 of 1999, dated 04.02.1999 is extracted hereunder:-
1. The writ petitioner was prosecuted for alleged offence of murder of his wife. The death of the wife of petitioner took place on 25th of February, 1996. The petitioner was working as Depot Controller at Srikalahasti Depot of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short the 'R.T.C'). A prosecution was initiated against the petitioner after registration of crime. In the mean while the department initiated departmental proceedings on the following charge "For having involved in a criminal case of alleged killing on 25-2-1996 which has resulted in framing criminal case against you as Crime No. 30 of 1996 under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C) by Muthyalareddypalli police station which amounts 22 SN,J wp_1425_2023 misconduct under Sec. 29 (xxxi) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees Conduct Regulations, 1963."
2. The criminal prosecution initiated against the petitioner ultimately ended in acquittal in S.C.No. 1 of 1997 before the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupathi by judgment dated 8-8-1997. The said acquittal has become final. However, the disciplinary authority in the departmental-enquiry, upon completion of the enquiry passed orders on 28-11-
1996 removing the petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred appeal against the said order. The same was dismissed. The review petition was also dismissed by the Regional Manager of the R.T.C. As a result, the petitioner filed the writ petition to challenge the order of his removal.
3. The learned Single Judge held that 1 the disciplinary authority was in error in holding the petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him in disciplinary proceedings in view of the judgment of the Court. The petitioner-delinquent was entitled to be cleared of the charge in disciplinary enquiry and accordingly allowed the writ petition.
4. Challenging the order of the learned single Judge, the R.T.C. has filed this Writ Appeal. We find no merit in the appeal inspite of the persuasion of the learned counsel for the appellant-R.T.C. We have already pointed out as to what charge was framed in the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner. It has to be noted that the charge was not for the substantive act of having caused death of the wife. The charge was only that petitioner was involved in a criminal case and the said involvement had resulted in framing of a criminal case for offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in course of the enquiry the petitioner had himself stated that death of his wife was result of his delinquency. It is argued that in view of this admission of the petitioner the disciplinary authority was justified in accepting the 23 SN,J wp_1425_2023 same and Court cannot reappreciate the evidence. We fail to understand as to how the statement of petitioner was relevant in the instant case. The charge was only for involvement in a criminal case resulting in instituting of a criminal case against the petitioner. As soon as the criminal case itself was found to be untenable in Court of law, the very basis of the charge was knocked out. The charge should have been quashed as and when the criminal case ended in acquittal. Involvement in a criminal case which was not tenable in Court of law can hardly amount to any delinquency. It cannot be disputed that the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold O disciplinary enquiry on the same charge as is before a Criminal Court because the scope of disciplinary enquiry and a criminal trial is different. But where the charge in the disciplinary enquiry is necessarily dependent 5 on the result of the criminal case if the criminal case itself ends in favour of the delinquent, the charge in the disciplinary enquiry will become unsustainable one. In the facts and circumstances of the case having regard to the charge framed against the petitioner and having regard to the result of the criminal case, we have no manner of doubt that the learned single Judge was right in allowing the petitioner's claim. In view of the fact the petitioner had been acquitted in the criminal case, this Court opines that the charge in the disciplinary proceedings will become unsustainable one.
13. A bare perusal of the record indicates that the consequential orders, dated 04.07.2022 of the 2nd respondent clearly indicates that Appellate Authority 24 SN,J wp_1425_2023 did not apply its mind independently and rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the penalty of "withholding of increment of pay for a period of one year with cumulative effect imposed against the petitioner" by the Director General, TSPF, Secunderabad without assigning any single reason except stating there are no grounds to consider petitioner's request.
14. This Court opines that quasi judicial Authorities in discharge of their duties are bound to act judicially and pass detailed reasoned orders and not act mechanically, in a casual manner without application of mind.
The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 in Kranti Associates Private Limited & Another v. Masood Ahmed Khan & Others at para 47 observed as under :
Para 47 : Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:
(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative 25 SN,J wp_1425_2023 decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.
(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any * possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.
(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.
(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.
(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-
making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.
26
SN,J wp_1425_2023
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.
(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.
(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.
(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber-stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process.
(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny.
(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, 27 SN,J wp_1425_2023
(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons, for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "due process".
15. A bare perusal of the record indicates that petitioner vide detailed representation, dated 14.07.2025 addressed to the 2nd respondent i.e., Director General, Telangana Special Protection Force, Budda Bhavan, Secunderabad, requested to consider petitioner's case for nomination of petitioner's name to DPC for petitioner's further promotion as Additional Commandant, since the petitioner is going to retire from service on 31.08.2025 and the said representation, dated 14.07.2025, had been acknowledged by the office of the 2nd respondent on 14.07.2025 itself.
16. This Court opines that the subject issue needs reconsideration by the respondents herein in view of the acquittal of the petitioner vide verdict, dated 30.06.2025 passed in C.C.No.10 of 2023 in Crime 28 SN,J wp_1425_2023 No.164 of 2020 of P.S. Palvoncha Town, on the file of the III Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Criminal Court for Agency Area) Kothagudem, in the light of the discussion and conclusion as arrived at para Nos.5 to 15 of the present judgment.
17. Taking into consideration:-
a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,
b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services (Home) appearing on behalf of the respondents,
c) The impugned order dated 25.01.2022 vide Rc.No.TSPF/A3/PR/17/2020-22 of the respondent No.2-The Director General of Police, Telangana State Protection Force, Secunderabad issued to the petitioner herein (referred to and extracted above),
d) The impugned order dated 04.07.2022 vide Memo No.3890/Ser.III/A1/2022 of the respondent 29 SN,J wp_1425_2023 No.1 addressed to the respondent No.2-the Director General of Police, Telangana State Protection Force, Secunderabad (referred to and extracted above),
e) The proceedings of the respondent No.2- The Director General of Police, Telangana State Protection Force, Secunderabad dated 15.07.2022 vide R.C.No.SPF/A3/ PR/17/2020-22 issued to the petitioner herein (referred to and extracted above),
f) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 and in particular, paragraph Nos.24 and 25 (referred to and extracted above),
g) The judgment, dated 30.06.2025 in C.C.No.10 of 2023 in Cr.No.164/2020 of P.S.Palvoncha Town on the file of the Court of III Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Criminal Court for Agency areas) Kothagudem (referred to and extracted above) 30 SN,J wp_1425_2023
h) The judgments of the Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court(referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below:-
j) (2006) 5 SCC 446
ii) (2024) 1 SCC 175
iii) (1999) 3 SCC 679
iv) 1999(1) A.P.L.J. 189(HC)
v) (2010) 9 SCC 496 The Writ Petition is allowed, directing respondent Nos.1 & 2 to reconsider the punishment imposed on 25.01.2022 in the present writ petition by the 2nd respondent, which was confirmed by respondent No.1 on 04.07.2022 and communicated to the petitioner on 15.07.2022 by the respondent No.2 in accordance to law duly examining and considering the judgment dated 30.06.2025 passed in C.C. No.10 of 2023, as well as the petitioner's representation dated 14.07.2025 addressed to the respondents herein, seeking nomination of the petitioner's name to the DPC for further promotion as Additional Commandant, since the petitioner is due to retire from service on 31.08.2025 duly taking into consideration the observations in the judgments of 31 SN,J wp_1425_2023 the Apex Court and the judgment of Division Bench of this Court(referred to and extracted above) and pass appropriate orders, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and duly communicate the decision on petitioner's representation, dated 14.07.2025 to the petitioner herein. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed.
___________________________ MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA Date: 17.07.2025 Note: Issue CC by today L.R.Copy to be marked b/o Lpd