Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 655 (TS)

Gorrela Durga Rao v. Government Of Andhra Pradesh

2024-09-04

B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

body2024
ORDER : (B. Vijaysen Reddy, J.) : The writ petition is filed to declare the inaction of the respondents No.1 to 4 in conducting investigation on the complaints/petitions of the petitioner dated 27.06.2005, 09.09.2005, 20.09.2005 and 30.09.2005 and a complaint made in January 2006 against the respondent No.5 as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents No.1 to 4 to register criminal case against the respondents No.5 and 6 and order an independent investigation by appropriate and competent police authority, not below the rank of Superintendent of Police. 2. Petitioner appeared as party-in-person and stated that the petitioner joined as Constable in the Police Department of Government of Andhra Pradesh, in Krishna District on 14.06.1970 and subsequently, he was promoted as A.S.I. on 15.07.2000 and transferred to Vigilance and Enforcement of respondent No.3 (Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation) on deputation on 06.06.2002 and he worked there until he was placed under suspension vide order dated 12.12.2007. 3. It is stated that when the petitioner was posted in the vigilance and enforcement wing of the respondent No.3, he observed the prevalence of corruption among staff in vigilance and enforcement wing. On 05.03.2005, on credible information that there was pilferage of diesel from MCH vehicle at CTO (Chief Transport Officer), MCH, Malakpet, the petitioner made surprise inspection of the vehicle bearing No.FR 23262, in Circle No.III and VI belonging to respondent No.3, in which certain staff belonging to vigilance and enforcement wing were found in possession of excess amount than what was recorded in the registers maintained by vigilance and enforcement wing of respondent No.3 and he made surprise inspection note of the same. The staff of vigilance and enforcement wing of the respondent No.3 collected the amount on 05.03.2005 from the members of the public without issuing challans/receipts and thereby indulged in corrupt activities and the petitioner had caught them red-handed with help of the media (Etv-2) and the same was telecast on Etv-2 under the caption "Andhravani". At that time, the respondent No.5 was working as Additional Superintendent of Police in the office of the respondent No.3. The above incident created sensation among the staff and officers including the respondent No.5, who called the petitioner and abused in filthy language in the presence of the staff. 4. At that time, the respondent No.5 was working as Additional Superintendent of Police in the office of the respondent No.3. The above incident created sensation among the staff and officers including the respondent No.5, who called the petitioner and abused in filthy language in the presence of the staff. 4. It is stated that in that connection, the respondent No.5, who had grudge against the petitioner, has sent adverse remarks to the respondent No.3 requesting to repatriate the petitioner to his parent department at Krishna District, by obtaining complaint from the staff, on 07.03.2005. The petitioner was served with a repatriation order dated 07.03.2005 of the respondent No.3 on 09.03.05, but he was not relieved from duty by the respondent No.5, who was the controlling and drawing officer. Despite repeated requests, with a malafide intention and harass the petitioner and to ensure his suspension, the respondent No.5 did not serve relieving orders even on the date of his retirement. 5. It is stated that the petitioner made enquiries about the respondent No.5 him and ultimately found that he was not competent to hold the office of Additional Superintendent of Police as he completed 58 years of age on 31.05.2003. The respondent No.5 was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police on 14.12.1972, promoted as Inspector of Police on 30.06.1983 and Deputy Superintendent of Police and later, got promoted as Additional Superintendent of Police on 23.07.2004. As per the A.P. Gazette, Part-I, extraordinary, published on 25.04.2005, the name of respondent No.5 is figuring at Sl.No.296 in Hyderabad Range and his date of birth is 01.06.1945. Thus, he should have retired from service on completion of 58 years of age on 31.05.2003 itself, but he continued in service up to November 2005. It is stated that after complaints were lodged by the petitioner including complaint made in January 2006, the respondent No.5 made an application for voluntary retirement in October 2005 and has taken voluntary retirement in November 2005. 6. It is stated that the respondent No.5 manipulated the record and altered his date of birth as 01.06.1948 and got promotion as Additional Superintendent of Police, and thereby cheated the Police Department and also Government of Andhra Pradesh. 6. It is stated that the respondent No.5 manipulated the record and altered his date of birth as 01.06.1948 and got promotion as Additional Superintendent of Police, and thereby cheated the Police Department and also Government of Andhra Pradesh. The respondent No.5, while working as Additional Superintendent of Police in the respondent No.3-corporation, got an ambassador car allotted to him, which was set on fire deliberately, in front of his residence at Bowenpally, Secunderabad, to claim conveyance allowance of Rs.14,000/- per month, and the same was neither intimated to the officers of the respondent No.5 nor to the police. The petitioner made allegations against the respondent No.5, in the above complaint/petitions, pertaining to the assets which are disproportionate to the known sources of income and other corrupt practices indulged by the respondent No.5. 7. It is stated that the respondent No.5 had completed his age of superannuation of 58 years as on 31.05.2003 and he had no power to continue in office. He managed and unauthorizedly continued in office up to November 2005 by manipulating the records, as such, the respondent No.5 had no power to relieve the petitioner from duty. As such, the issue pertaining to the date of birth of the respondent No.5 is very crucial. The respondent No.5 claimed that the petitioner was relieved on 09.03.2005 and 15.03.2005 and based on his letters and correspondence sent to the officials, the petitioner was treated as deserter by the higher ups. As such, the petitioner submitted several complaints/petitions, as stated above, bringing to the notice of the respondent No.2, apart from other authorities, from time to time, about the date of birth issue and other corrupt activities of the respondent No.5 along with all available documentary evidence constituting the offences under the provisions of IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act. Penal action is required to be taken by the authorities. Further, disciplinary action ought to have been to be taken against the respondent No.5 for omissions and commissions on the part of the respondent No.5, which constituted misconduct under the relevant service regulations. 8. It is stated that the petitioner was surprised to know that a memo dated 20.02.2008 was issued by the respondent No.1 alleging, inter alia, that he made false allegations against respondent No.5 and the same constitutes misconduct under A.P. Civil Service Conduct Rules, 1964, thereby initiating disciplinary action against him. 8. It is stated that the petitioner was surprised to know that a memo dated 20.02.2008 was issued by the respondent No.1 alleging, inter alia, that he made false allegations against respondent No.5 and the same constitutes misconduct under A.P. Civil Service Conduct Rules, 1964, thereby initiating disciplinary action against him. The authorities instead of taking action against the respondent No.5 served articles of charges on the petitioner. Allegedly, on the basis of a discreet enquiry said to have been conducted by the respondent No.6, who was working as Inspector of Police, ACB, Hyderabad. The respondent No.6 had not chosen to examine the petitioner nor did he ascertain any information from the petitioner. The action of the respondent No.6 is unjust, unilateral, biased and illegal. The respondent No.6 failed to discharge his statutory and official duties by colluding with the respondent No.5. On the complaint of the petitioner, the respondent No.4 vide his letter dated 26.12.2006 recommended to the concerned authority to stop payment of pension to respondent No.5. 9. It is stated that though the respondent No.2 was aware of the cognizable offence committed by the respondent No.5, no case was ordered to be registered against the respondent No.5 and he tried his best to draw all pensionary benefits by filing an O.A. before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal. The respondent No.2 did not file any appeal against the order of A.P. Administrative Tribunal and disbursed the pensionary benefits to shield the abettors (worked/working in DGP Office) in the manipulation of the date of birth of the respondent No.5. 10. In the counter filed by the respondent No.5, it is contended that the writ petition is not maintainable. It is stated that that the complaints made against the respondent No.5 by the petitioner in respect of disproportionate assets, correction of the date of birth, burning of official car etc. were all enquired by the Anti Corruption Bureau and State Intelligence Department, on the direction of the respondent No.1 and found to be not proved. Pursuant thereto the enquiry report submitted by the ACB to the respondent No.1 and Vigilance Department, the respondent No.1 issued G.O.Ms.No.1852 dated 15.12.2007 by dropping further action into the petitions given by the petitioner against the respondent No.5 and ordered to release pension and pensionery benefits. Pursuant thereto the enquiry report submitted by the ACB to the respondent No.1 and Vigilance Department, the respondent No.1 issued G.O.Ms.No.1852 dated 15.12.2007 by dropping further action into the petitions given by the petitioner against the respondent No.5 and ordered to release pension and pensionery benefits. Further the respondent No.1 ordered to deal with the petitioner for making false allegations to tarnish the image of the respondent No.5 in the same G.O. and a charge memo was issued to the petitioner in Memo No.379/ SC.A1/2007 dated 20.2.2008 and enquiries were conducted into the said charge and other departmental, oral enquiries for his high-handed and reprehensible conduct and indulging in corrupt practices by blackmailing and demanding the bribe from the sanitary jawans and home guards of V&E Cell, MCH. 11. It is submitted that later the petitioner was punished with withholding of entire pension permanently vide G.O.Ms.No.304 Home (SC.A) Department dated 31.12.2011, but the petitioner retired on 30.06.2009. Had he not been retired, he would have been imposed with the punishment warranting dismissal from service in view of G.O.Ms.No.458 General Administration (Ser.C) Department dated 22.09.2009. 12. It is submitted that the respondent No.5 entrusted the relieving order to Inspector of Police, V&E, MCH and other officers to serve the relieving orders to the petitioner, but the petitioner refused to receive the relieving orders. Accordingly, the officers, who were deputed to serve the relieving orders, pasted the relieving orders on the main door of his apartment and panchanama was drawn on 25.03.2005. The respondent No.3 vide Lr.No.91/V&EC/ASP/MCH/2005-318 dated 02.04.2005 intimated the Superintendent of Police, Krishna District, that the petitioner, ASI was deemed to have been relieved from MCH i.e. respondent No.3 on 09.03.2005 and further requested Superintendent of Police, Krishna District, to take necessary disciplinary action against the petitioner-G. Durga Rao, ASI, for his highhanded and reprehensible conduct for not receiving the official orders. 13. It is submitted that the date of birth of the respondent No.5 was entered in the Service Register as 01.06.1948 basing on the school certificate at the time of joining in the organization, which is the correct date of birth. The Home (Police-E) Department communicated approved seniority list of Inspectors of Ranges vide Memo No.34510/Pol/E/93-3 dated 27.09.1993 wherein the name of the respondent No.5 was shown at Sl.No.137 and his date of birth was shown as 01.06.1948. The Home (Police-E) Department communicated approved seniority list of Inspectors of Ranges vide Memo No.34510/Pol/E/93-3 dated 27.09.1993 wherein the name of the respondent No.5 was shown at Sl.No.137 and his date of birth was shown as 01.06.1948. But the D.I.G., Hyderabad Range vide Lr.No.431/E1-61/HR/2003 dated 17.04.2003 communicated provisional seniority list of all ranges in which the name of the respondent No.5 was shown at Sl.No.530 and date of birth was shown as 01.06.1945. On receipt of the same, the respondent No.5 made a representation on 15.05.2003 to the D.G. & I.G.P., A.P., Hyderabad, to rectify the wrong entry and enter his date of birth as 01.06.1948. Accordingly, the respondent No.1 informed the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh by its Lr.No.118/SC.A/A/Al of Home (SC.A) Department dated 27.07.2006 that the correct date of birth of the respondent No.5 is 01.06.1948 as per the Service Register and as per the school records and it may be corrected in the final State wide Integrated Seniority List prepared by the Additional Director General of Police (Administration), A.P., Hyderabad. 14. It is submitted that respondent No.5 was to retire from service on completion of 58 years service on 31.05.2006 on attaining the age of superannuation. But the respondent No.5 made an application in the month of October 2005 and sought voluntary retirement for the personal reasons. The application for voluntary retirement was considered by respondent No.1 and orders vide G.O.Ms.No.256 dated 30.11.2005 were issued and respondent No.5 retired from service with effect from 30.11.2005 A.N. 15. It is submitted that the respondentNo.5 was allotted a car bearing No.AP 2/3228 and the same went off-road. On which the respondent No.5 submitted representation to the respondent No.3 vide Lr.No.781/V&EC/ASP/MCH/2004 dated 25.11.2004 for hiring a private vehicle, the respondent No.3 permitted the respondent No.5 to hire a private car on 01.12.2004, whereupon the respondent No.5 hired a private vehicle i.e. Ambassdor car AP 9 W 6922 from M/s. Srinivasa Travels, Baghlingampally and an amount of Rs. 12,000/- was paid as hire charges. The allegation of burning of the official car is absolutely false and incorrect. The ACB enquired into this aspect and stated the said allegation is false. 16. It is submitted that the allegations made by the petitioner pertaining to the assets of the respondent No.5, which are disproportionate to the known sources of income, were found to be not proved by ACB. The ACB enquired into this aspect and stated the said allegation is false. 16. It is submitted that the allegations made by the petitioner pertaining to the assets of the respondent No.5, which are disproportionate to the known sources of income, were found to be not proved by ACB. Whatever properties held by the respondent No.5 were purchased by obtaining permission and intimating to the department concerned. Certain properties mentioned by the petitioner in his reply affidavit do not belong to the respondent No.5 at all. 17. Mr. P. Venugopal, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No.5, has taken preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition. He submitted that by order dated 15.12.2007 vide G.O.Rt.No.1852 Home (SC.A) Department, the Government accepted the report of the Director General, ACB, Hyderabad, dated 30.10.2006 and dropped further action against the respondent No.5 and as such, the subject matter of the writ petition has become infructuous. 18. However, the petitioner submitted that the writ petition has not become infructuous. 19. The matter was heard on several occasions. In the course of hearing, it was brought to the notice of the petitioner that vide G.O.Rt.No.1852 dated 15.12.2007, the proceedings were dropped against the respondent No.5 and on the other hand action was directed to be taken against the petitioner by ACB. This Court asked the petitioner to engage a counsel or alternatively avail assistance of Legal Services Authority. However, the petitioner responded stating that he would consult a lawyer and answer to this Court as to whether the writ petition is maintainable or not. On 10.07.2024, the petitioner submitted written arguments. 20. In his written arguments, the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the writ affidavit. The petitioner tried to explain the manner in which the respondent No.5 altered his date of birth and also his name. He submitted that the authorities have given a go-by to the rules and procedures governing the alteration of date of birth. The petitioner has given references of the schools and college where the respondent No.5 studied and tried to substantiate his allegation that the respondent No.5 manipulated his date of birth. It is contended that the respondent No.6, who conducted discreet enquiry against the respondent No.5, concealed the facts and submitted false report, as he was hand-in-glove with the respondent No.5. The petitioner has given references of the schools and college where the respondent No.5 studied and tried to substantiate his allegation that the respondent No.5 manipulated his date of birth. It is contended that the respondent No.6, who conducted discreet enquiry against the respondent No.5, concealed the facts and submitted false report, as he was hand-in-glove with the respondent No.5. The statement of the petitioner was not recorded before the respondent No.5 was exonerated. It is submitted that there is no immunity under the Constitution of India that discharges the respondent No.5 from criminal liability for the offences of corruption and cheating. 21. I have perused the record, averments in the writ affidavit and also the detailed written submissions of the petitioner. 22. The petitioner on one hand and the respondent No.5 on the other have relied on several documents to prove their respective case, which, in the opinion of this Court are not necessary to be referred to, as the limited grievance of the petitioner is that his complaints made against the respondents No.5 and 6 were not acted upon. 23. On a perusal of the complaints lodged by the petitioner, it can be seen that he made allegations that the respondent No.5 has amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income, purchased several lands and several properties; that the respondent No.5 has gold and silver ornaments worth lakhs of rupees, owns two cars and performed marriages of three daughters luxuriously. The respondent No.5 is the only earning member of his family; he has invested in construction business of his brother-in-law and has share in the management of educational institutions like St. Martin School, Malkajgiri and Mallareddy Engineering College, Medchal and other properties. The respondent No.5 and other staff of MCH (V&D) misappropriated daily income of MCH Trucks by remitting a paltry sum of Rs.14,000/- to the department. 24. It is borne out from the order dated 15.07.2005 in G.O.Rt.No.1852 that on representation made by the petitioner (G. Durga Rao, ASI, Complainant), the Government requested that Director General, ACB, to furnish detailed remarks on the aspects of corruption and other irregularities including disproportionate assets levelled against the respondent No.5. On 12 allegations, the Director General, by his report dated 30.10.2006 submitted his findings by stating that the allegations made against the respondent No.5 were not substantiated and recommended dropping of further action against the respondent No.5. On 12 allegations, the Director General, by his report dated 30.10.2006 submitted his findings by stating that the allegations made against the respondent No.5 were not substantiated and recommended dropping of further action against the respondent No.5. The Director General of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Andhra Pradesh, further recommended departmental action against the petitioner for deliberately tarnishing the image of the respondent No.5, who is superior officer and harassing him with ill motive. Pursuant to G.O.Rt.No.1852 dated 15.12.2007 disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner and by order in G.O.Ms.No.304 Home (SC.A) Department dated 31.12.2011 imposed punishment of withholding of entire pension permanently against the petitioner, as charges were held proved against him. 25. In view of G.O.Rt.No.1852 dated 15.12.2007 wherein the respondent No.5 was exonerated and disciplinary action against him was dropped on discreet enquiry conducted by ACB, the request of the petitioner for conducting investigation on his complaints is without any substance and legal basis. The petitioner did not choose to challenge G.O.Rt.No.1852 dated 15.12.2007. The respondent No.5, in the course of time, retired from service. 26. It may be noted that initially the writ petition was filed as Public Interest Litigation and numbered as PIL.No.485 of 2013 and later, it was converted into WP.No.33082 of 2021. The enquiry conducted by ACB was accepted by the Government and the action against the respondent No.5 was dropped. Thus, the proceedings initiated against the respondent No.5 reached logical conclusion. 27. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent No.6 colluded with the respondent No.5 and has given favourable report. This Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indian, cannot permit the party to bypass the procedure established by law. When the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent No.5 had come to an end, the petitioner should have taken steps to challenge such proceedings. Instead of doing so, the petitioner came through a different route and wanted his complaints to be enquired into and criminal action to be taken against the respondents No.5 and 6. If such course is resorted to, then it would amount to this Court reopening the enquiry and disciplinary proceedings. According to the petitioner, the respondents No.5 and 6 have colluded, which resulted in giving a clean chit to the respondent No.5. The allegations of the petitioner in that regard are vague and unsustainable. 28. If such course is resorted to, then it would amount to this Court reopening the enquiry and disciplinary proceedings. According to the petitioner, the respondents No.5 and 6 have colluded, which resulted in giving a clean chit to the respondent No.5. The allegations of the petitioner in that regard are vague and unsustainable. 28. The petitioner is trying to place before this Court several new facts including the list of properties, allegedly, purchased by the respondent No.5 and also school and college certificates to show that the respondent No.5 has tampered with his age and name. All these documents ought to have been filed before the enquiry officer/disciplinary authority. Assuming that the petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing, then the petitioner should have taken steps to challenge such disciplinary proceedings. As the disciplinary proceedings were dropped against the respondent No.5, on the same allegations made herein, it would not be appropriate for this Court to direct criminal investigation to be conducted against the respondent No.5. In the light of the above observations, there are no merits in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.