Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 903 (AP)

U. Sekhar Babu v. Government of A. P.

2013-10-21

CHALLA KODANDA RAM, L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2013
Judgment : L. Narasimha Reddy, J. The petitioner was directly recruited as Sub-Inspector of Police in Visakhapatnam District. On 05.01.1994, he was attached to Mampa Police Station for one day and thereafter, to Koyyuru Police Station for few days. It is sated that on account of the acute family problems and is having been required to work in extremist infested areas, he was under depression and on 06.01.1994, while at Koyyuru Police Station, he went inside the room and fired three rounds from his revolver. The appointing authority i.e. the Deputy Inspector General of Police, the 3rd respondent herein, initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, through order, dated 22.02.1994 under Rule 19(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCCA) Rules 1991 (for short ‘the 1991 Rules’). The Additional Superintendent of Police, Visakhapatnam was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. After conducting a detailed enquiry, wherein nine witnesses were examined and extensive documentary evidence was adduced, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report, dated 15.09.1994, holding that the charges are not proved. The petitioner was also tried in a criminal case, but was acquitted therein. It is stated that though the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 15.09.1994, no further steps were taken by the 3rd respondent till 1997 and on 31.07.1997, he issued a memorandum of charge for imposing major penalty. A Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Vizianagaram was appointed as Enquiry Officer and the latter, in turn, submitted a report, dated 31.01.1998, holding that the charges against the petitioner are proved. Taking the same into account, the 3rd respondent passed an order, dated 03.08.1998, directing his removal from service. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the Additional Director General of Police, the 2nd respondent herein, passed an order, dated 02.09.1998, reducing the punishment to the one of reduction of time-scale of pay by two stages for two years with effect on future increments and pension and treating the period of suspension from 06.01.1994 to 09.02.1995 as not on duty. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed a revision before the 1st respondent and it was dismissed. Thereupon, the petitioner filed O.A.No.6601 of 1999 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The O.A. was dismissed by the Tribunal through order, dated 24.11.2003. Hence, this writ petition. Heard Sri S. Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I for the respondents. Thereupon, the petitioner filed O.A.No.6601 of 1999 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The O.A. was dismissed by the Tribunal through order, dated 24.11.2003. Hence, this writ petition. Heard Sri S. Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I for the respondents. In the narration of facts, it has been mentioned that the 3rd respondent initially passed an order, dated 22.02.1994, under Rule 19 (b) of the 1991 Rules directing departmental enquiry against the petitioner and appointing the Additional Superintendent Police as Enquiry Officer and three years thereafter, he issued a memorandum of charge, dated 31.07.1997, under Rule 20 of the 1991 Rules and appointing the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Vizianagaram as Enquiry Officer. The punishment imposed against the petitioner was on the basis of the second set of proceedings. Therefore, it needs to be seen as to whether there was any legal basis for the 3rd respondent to issue a memorandum of charge, dated 31.07.1997. Once the disciplinary authority initiated disciplinary proceedings and appointed an Enquiry Officer, proceedings must culminate either in an order dropping the proceedings or imposition of penalty depending upon the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the view taken by the disciplinary authority. Though the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 15.09.1994, as a sequel to the order, dated 22.02.1994, passed by the 3rd respondent, no further steps were taken in pursuance thereof. In certain cases, disciplinary authority is vested with the power to set at naught the disciplinary proceedings initiated against an employee and to order fresh proceedings. That, however, must be supported by valid reasons and the power in that behalf must be conferred by the relevant Rules. In the instant case, except making a reference to the order, dated 22.02.1994, and the report, dated 15.09.1994, in the second set of proceedings, dated 31.07.1997, the 3rd respondent did not mention the basis for ordering second enquiry. The preamble in that order reads as under: “The undersigned proposed to hold De novo Enquiry against Sri U. Sekhara Babu, S.I. of Police, formerly of Kothakota P.S., Visakhapatnam District now working in Vizianagaram District under Rule 20 of the APCS (CCCA) Rules, 1991. The substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in respect of which the Inquiry is proposed to be held is set out in the enclosed statement of articles of charge (Annexure-I). The substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in respect of which the Inquiry is proposed to be held is set out in the enclosed statement of articles of charge (Annexure-I). A statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge is enclosed (Annexure-II). A list of witnesses by whom and a list of documents by which, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained are also enclosed (Annexures-III and IV).” It was not even mentioned as to how and on what basis he has cancelled the earlier enquiry proceedings. Though he stated that procedural irregularities have been noticed, the details thereof are not indicated. In the pleadings delivered to the Tribunal, the respondents took the plea that the first set of proceedings, which are referable to the Rules framed in 1963, that stood repealed in the year 1991, and on noticing that the enquiry ought to have been conducted under the 1991 Rules, fresh proceedings were initiated. This plea is contrary to the record. In the order, dated 22.02.1994, the 3rd respondent invoked Rule 19(b) of the 1991 Rules. There was not even a mention of 1963 Rules. At the end of the report, the Enquiry Officer clearly mentioned that he followed the 1991 Rules. Assuming that any substantial procedural irregularity was noticed in the first set of proceedings, the 3rd respondent was under obligation to issue notice to the petitioner, in case he wanted to cancel them. The reason is that with the submission of a report in favour of the petitioner, valid rights have accrued to him. They cannot be taken away on the just whims of the 3rd respondent. The punishment, though modified by the appellate authority, was on the basis of the second set of proceedings and the same cannot be sustained. In view of the conclusion arrived at by us that the second set of proceedings are unsustainable, the matter must go back to the 3rd respondent for necessary action on the basis of the report, dated 15.09.1994. However, if we take into account the punishment, which the appellate authority felt appropriate, even on the basis of a report, where the charges were held proved, a practical view can be taken and the proceedings can be given a quietus. However, if we take into account the punishment, which the appellate authority felt appropriate, even on the basis of a report, where the charges were held proved, a practical view can be taken and the proceedings can be given a quietus. Hence, we allow the writ petition setting aside the order of dismissal, dated 03.08.1998, passed by the 3rd respondent, as modified by the 2nd respondent through order, dated 02.09.1998. In its place, the punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect shall stand imposed. The period during which the petitioner was under suspension shall be treated as on leave to his credit. We also direct that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any back wages. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall also stand disposed of.