Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 636 (TS)

Pole Dheerendra Reddy v. Commissioner Of Police

2020-08-19

T.VINOD KUMAR

body2020
JUDGMENT T.Vinod Kumar, J. - The present writ petition is filed for issue of a Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction on the part of the 1st respondent authority in considering and disposing of the representation, dated 06.06.2020, submitted by the petitioner, for initiating disciplinary proceedings and criminal prosecution against the respondents 4, 5 and others for fabricating the seizure report and using the fabricated document as genuine, framing the incorrect record and furnishing the false information to the Court, as arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of the representation dated 06.06.2020, submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law. 2. The present writ petition is taken up for hearing today, i.e. 19.08.2020, through Video Conferencing. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondents 1 to 3. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the writ averments. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home has forwarded to this Court by e-mail, the written instructions, dated 06.08.2020, under the signature of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ibrahimpatnam Division, Rachakonda Commissionerate. By the said written instructions, it is stated that upon receiving the representation from the petitioner, the 1st respondent made an endorsement, vide Endt.No.1065/Genl-Pet/C3/ Rachakonda/2020, dated 06.06.2020, to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, L.B.Nagar, who, in turn, vide proceedings No.423/C3-GP/DCP- LBNR/RCK/2020, directed the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ibrahimpatnam Division, to conduct an enquiry into the matter and submit report. 6. It is further stated by the written instructions that upon the instructions of the 1st respondent authority, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ibrahimpatnam Division, has conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted the report to the 1st respondent authority through proper channel, vide his letter No.13/ACP-IBP/RCK/2020, dated 15.07.2020. It is stated that the enquiry conducted into by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ibrahimpatnam Division, revealed that the Investigating Officer/G.Prabhakar, Sub-Inspector of Police, Kandukur Police Station, the 5th respondent herein, failed to take steps for safe custody of seized property and allowed the seized vehicle Tipper No.TS 17 T 0036 on 21.12.2019 for unloading the minerals in the said vehicle without escort, where the alleged party has taken advantage and used for plying to various places from 21.12.2019 to 10.01.2020. It is also stated that the 5th respondent did not take any steps for taking into custody the seized vehicle and also not arrested A2, which shows the callous attitude of the 5th respondent towards legitimate duties and investigation skills. 7. By the above instructions, it is also stated that in the enquiry, in so far as the involvement of the 4th respondent, who was the then Station House Officer, Kandukur PS, is concerned, it revealed that the said authority failed to supervise the case property and in turn obtained a letter from the complainant and allowed the seized vehicle Tipper No.TS 17 T 0036 without escort, when it was in police custody from 21.12.2019 for unloading minerals in the said vehicle, where the alleged party had taken advantage and used the same for plying to various places from 21.12.2019 to 10.01.2020. It is also stated that the said respondent authority did not initiate steps for taking custody of the seized vehicle and also not arrested A2, and thus, acted in callous manner in discharge of his legitimate duties and the investigation skills required to be possessed by the 4th respondent as Station House Officer. The enquiry officer, by the report submitted, observed that against the above officers disciplinary action can be initiated. Basing on the above report submitted by the ACP, upon conducting enquiry, it is stated that charge memos, vide Rc.Nos.151 and 152/PR-2/MPR/RCK/2020, dated 18.07.2020, were issued by the disciplinary authority calling for explanation from the 4th and 5th respondents in the present writ petition and the authority would take necessary action upon receiving their explanation. 8. By the written instructions, it is also stated that the 1st respondent authority by taking note of the report submitted by the ACP and also with regard to the complaint lodged by the petitioner herein, has transferred the 4th respondent, Inspector of Police, Kandukur, to Ghatkesar Police Station, vide D.O.No.1488/2020 RC No.209/E1/RCK/2020 dated 29.07.2020 of the Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda. The contention that the 1st respondent authority did not take any action by considering and disposing of the representation dated 06.06.2020 submitted by the petitioner by initiating disciplinary action, it is stated as false and denied. The contention that the 1st respondent authority did not take any action by considering and disposing of the representation dated 06.06.2020 submitted by the petitioner by initiating disciplinary action, it is stated as false and denied. By the above mentioned written instructions, it is stated that the 1st respondent authority has taken immediate action by directing enquiry into the matter and thereafter, getting the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the police authorities, apart from transferring the 4th respondent authority by exercising administrative powers. 9. Considering the submissions made as above, and since, it is stated that the authorities have already initiated disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent officer, it is needless to observe that the authority shall take further action upon receiving the explanation from the delinquent officers and take further action in accordance with law and also taking note of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) District Police Act, 1329 Fasli (as adopted by the State of Telangana) or the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli, whichever is applicable, in relation to dereliction of duties on the part of the delinquent authorities. 10. Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.