Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1050 (AP)

Madda Adam v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2023-07-12

D.RAMESH

body2023
ORDER : 1. The Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking to call for the records pertaining to impugned charge memo dated 07.11.2020 and set aside the same as bad, illegal and arbitrary. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) in the year 1998. He became eligible for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police in the year 2008, but the promotion was denied on the ground of punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect issued in the year 2007. Subsequently, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide proceedings dated 16.07.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed OA.No.3827 of 2011 before the Tribunal. The said O.A. was allowed vide judgment dated 10.07.2014. Against the Judgment passed in OA.No.3827 of 2011, the department filed W.P.No.28519 o f 2014. The said Writ Petition was dismissed vide order dated 19.11.2014. Accordingly the petitioner was reinstated into service vide proceedings dated 07.02.2015. 3. The petitioner was targeted on trivial issues hence, the petitioner submitted a representation to Spandana in the year 2020. But the same was not considered. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the CM’s office on 28.09.2020 for redressal of his grievance, but he was restrained. The Inspector of Police, Tadepalli addressed a letter dated 29.09.2020 to the 5th respondent projecting the issue as if the petitioner impersonated. The 5th respondent addressed a letter to the 4th respondent referring the report submitted by the Inspector of Police, Tadepalli P.S. dated 29.09.2020. The 4th respondent addressed a letter dated 30.09.2020 to the 3rd respondent to take appropriate action. The 3rd respondent without following the procedure has straight away issued charge memo dated 07.11.2020, which is contrary to Rule 20 of the CCA Rules. As per the policy of the Government, the enquires must be completed within three months and in complicated cases within six months. In the present case the charge memo was issued on 07.11.2020, but till now no Enquiry Officer was appointed. Based on the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the respondents denied the promotion of the petitioner, which is illegal. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. After notice, the 3rd respondent has filed counter. In the present case the charge memo was issued on 07.11.2020, but till now no Enquiry Officer was appointed. Based on the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the respondents denied the promotion of the petitioner, which is illegal. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. After notice, the 3rd respondent has filed counter. According to the averments made in the counter, the petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) in Zone -VI i.e., Hyderabad range on 20.09.1998. As per the G.O.Ms.No. 137 Home (Pol.E) Department, dated:01.06.1998 r/w 208 Home, petitioner had completed the prescribed period of 6 years in the rank of Sub-Inspector (Civil) by 19.09.2004 and became eligible to promote to the next higher rank i.e., Inspector of Police (Civil). Thereafter, the petitioner was repatriated to Zone- II i.e., Eluru Range as he was found surplus to the quota of 30% meant for non-locals in Zone VI Vide G.O.Rt.No.291/Home (Ser-II) Department, dated 16.12.2006. The petitioner reported for duty on 18.04.2006. His seniority in the cadre of Sub-Inspector(Civil) was fixed in the new unit with effect from 18.04.2006 as per Rule 35(b) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules. As per the seniority and availability of vacancies, his juniors and the petitioner came into zone of consideration during the panel year 2011-2012. By the time his immediate junior Sri.K.Soloman Raju in the SIs (Civil) seniority list was included for promotion as Inspectors of Police (Civil) for the panel year 2012-2013 and promoted as Inspector of Police (Civil) by the 3rd respondent vide order dated 14.03.2013. During the subsequent panel years, the petitioner was under currency for the punishments. 5. It is submitted that on 29.09.2020, Inspector of Police, Tadepalli P.S submitted a report to the 5th respondent stating that on 28.09.2020 at 8.00 a.m. the petitioner came in civil dress to Hon'ble Chief Minister's Camp Office and tried to gain entry into the Camp Office by misrepresenting the facts about his identity, on the pretext of submission of his personal grievances to the Hon'ble Chief Minister and threatened the staff members of bandho bust party that he would commit suicide, if he is not allowed to submit his personal grievance to the Hon'ble Chief Minister. On receipt of the same, the 5th respondent addressed a letter dated 29.09.2020 to the 4th respondent with a request to take stringent disciplinary action against the petitioner. On receipt of the same, the 5th respondent addressed a letter dated 29.09.2020 to the 4th respondent with a request to take stringent disciplinary action against the petitioner. The 4th respondent forwarded the special report of the 5th respondent to the 3rd respondent vide letter dated 30.09.2020 along with the enclosures to take appropriate disciplinary action against the petitioner. On the same day, the petitioner was repatriated to Eluru Range from Vijayawada City vide letter dated 30.09.2020 of the 4threspondent. After going through the same, the 3rd Respondent decided to initiate a major punishment and in that context framed Articles of Charge vide Memo dated 07.11.2020. The said charge memo was served on the petitioner on 23.11.2020 and the petitioner was directed to submit his written statement of defence within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the copy and further directed to furnish the documents for the purpose of submitting his defence, indicating the relevance of the documents so required, within a period of five days from the date of receipt of memorandum of charges as per Rules 20 [5(d)] of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991. The petitioner received the same on 23.11.2020. 6. The petitioner submitted a representation to the 3rd respondent requesting to supply the information (CC TV footage) to prove his innocence against the allegations raised against him. The 3rd respondent forwarded the above representation to the 5th respondent and requested to submit the information as sought by the petitioner. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent issued four reminder memos and a D.O. Letter to the 5th respondent to furnish the required information immediately. While matters stood thus, the 5th respondent issued a Memo dated 03.11.2021 and subsequently, reminder memos on 04.04.2022, 11.06.2022 and 10.08.2022 to the Inspector of Police, Tadepalli P.S. to furnish the information sought by the petitioner. Soon after receipt of the information from the 5th respondent, the 3rd respondent will supply the same to the petitioner and then obtain the written statement of defence from the petitioner, then only further action will be taken on merits. 7. It is submitted that there is no wanton delay to furnish the information sought by the petitioner. The procedure laid down under Rule 20 of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 to conduct disciplinary proceedings has not been deviated. 7. It is submitted that there is no wanton delay to furnish the information sought by the petitioner. The procedure laid down under Rule 20 of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 to conduct disciplinary proceedings has not been deviated. The petitioner being a government employee violated Rule-3 of AP Civil Service (Conduct) Rules'1964 by not obtaining prior permission from the competent authority while approaching higher officials. 8. In reply to the above the petitioner filed reply affidavit. In the said reply affidavit it is stated that the respondent has not answered any of the questions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition as to why the disciplinary authority have jumped to Rule 20(5)(d) without following the procedure mentioned in Rule 20 and as to why the inspector of Police hurriedly submit a report on the very next day and how the respondents hurriedly sent the letters and passed orders. The respondents admitted that they could not furnish the CCTV footage asked by the petitioner. After several letters from the 5th respondent, the Inspector of Police Tadepalli, has informed to the 5th respondent that there is no such CC TV footage available. The 5th respondent informed the same to the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent vide his letter dated 18.11.2022 directed the petitioner to submit a written statement without furnishing the relevant material. It is further submitted that no CC TV footage in the CM’s Camp Office, which is a material thing to prove the alleged misconduct of the petitioner and not producing it even after several letters shows that the framing of charge on the petitioner is a concocted one. 9. The respondents in their counter submitted that due to the reason of punishment and dismissal of petitioner from the service in the respective panel years he could not be promoted. But the said dismissal order dated 06.07.2011 was set aside by the Tribunal on 10.07.2014, which was confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court on 19.11.2014 and he was reinstated on 07.02.2015, as such the respondents taking that stand is misleading and impermissible. Assuming that the petitioner is not eligible for promotion during the pendency of punishment dated 16.07.2007(PPI for 2 years) till 2010-2011, atleast the petitioner is entitled for promotion for the panel years 2011-2012 which was denied solely on the ground of the illegal dismissal of the petitioner on 16.07.2011. Assuming that the petitioner is not eligible for promotion during the pendency of punishment dated 16.07.2007(PPI for 2 years) till 2010-2011, atleast the petitioner is entitled for promotion for the panel years 2011-2012 which was denied solely on the ground of the illegal dismissal of the petitioner on 16.07.2011. The subsequent punishments issued in 2016 and 2020 cannot be operated retrospectively and the pendency of the present impugned charge memo dated 07.11.2020 also cannot be operated retrospectively. Hence, prayed to set aside the charge memo dated 07.11.2020 and consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police with effect from the date of his eligibility i.e., for the panel year 2011-2012. 10. Based on the above pleadings and on perusal of the record, there is no doubt in the instant case though they have initiated disciplinary proceedings on 07.11.2020, but so far no Enquiry officer has been appointed and no further proceedings were taken place, that itself shows that the respondents have not inclined to conclude the proceedings as per the time stipulated and as per the instructions issued by the Government time and again. Considering the same, the charge memo issued against the petitioner on 07.11.2020 is set aside, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for the promotion to the post of Inspector of Police for the panel year 2011-2012. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no Order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.