Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1186 (TS)

M. Madhusudhan Rao v. State of Telanagana

2025-10-09

NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

body2025
ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondents in continuing the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, pursuant to Memorandum P.R.No.51/2016/No.L&O/BS/Tr/1736/2-13-16 dated 09.06.2016 and Memorandum No. HCP/NZ/HNI/OE/621/2021 dated 19.08.2024, issued by respondent Nos. 3 and 5, respectively. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- (a) The petitioner was initially appointed as Reserve-Sub Inspector of Police in S.A.R.C.P.L. vide proceedings dated 29.08.1991 issued by the Special Inspector General of Police, APSP Battalions, A.P., Hyderabad and thereafter promoted as Reserve Inspector vide proceedings dated 19.10.2015 issued by the 2 nd respondent and working as such till date. While so, the 3 rd respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and issued Charge Memo dated 09.06.2016 alleging that the petitioner contracted multiple marriages and got involved in criminal cases in connection with the said marriages and that while availing L.T.C. he had shown the name of one Smt.M.Renuka as his wife and at the time of submitting pension papers, he has nominated one Smt.Sumalatha as his wife. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.42696 of 2016, and this Court granted an interim order. Later, the petitioner, believing that the respondents would drop the proceedings initiated against him, withdrew the said writ petition on 26.04.2021. Regarding two other charge memos, the writ petitions were withdrawn, and in those cases, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner were dropped. (b) The petitioner’s grievance in the present writ petition is that the disciplinary proceedings should not be continued on the same set of facts, since he has been acquitted in the criminal cases. A Statement of imputations of misconduct does not accompany the aforementioned charge memo, and the list of witnesses does not contain the names of witnesses, i.e., Mrs.Ganga Manoher, Smt.Jalaja Srinivasulu, Smt.Padmaja and Smt.Sumalatha respectively. Once the criminal cases are ended in acquittal, continuing the disciplinary proceedings on the very same set of facts would amount to double jeopardy. (c) The petitioner was previously subjected to disciplinary/criminal proceedings based on a complaint filed by his former wife, Smt.Ganga Manohari and thereafter, he was removed from service vide proceedings dated 28.02.2001 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, APSP, Hyderabad. However, the said proceedings were set aside by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1638 of 2001 dated 23.07.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated into service vide proceedings dated 21.08.2001. However, the said proceedings were set aside by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1638 of 2001 dated 23.07.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated into service vide proceedings dated 21.08.2001. Regarding the same allegations, the petitioner was tried for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 420, 494, and 307 of the IPC. The petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC, but acquitted in respect of the other offences, as per the judgment, dated 14.02.2003. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred Crl.A.No.259 of 2002, and this Court vide judgment dated 12.04.2006 set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the court below. Subsequently, upon the directions issued by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 26.06.2007, the petitioner was reinstated into service vide proceedings dated 01.05.2007 issued by the 5 th respondent. (d) After being dismissed from service in 2001, the petitioner got divorced from his wife, Smt.Ganga Manohari @ Renuka vide O.P.No.298 of 2002 dated 10.08.2002. Regarding the allegation concerning the petitioner’s marriage and involvement in a criminal case, the issue is covered by the earlier orders of the Tribunal and this Court in the criminal case. Therefore, it is not open to the authorities to reopen the case after a lapse of more than 15 years from the date of the alleged incident and after nine years from the date of reinstatement into service. (e) Regarding the allegation that the petitioner performed a third marriage with one Smt.Padmaja on 14.04.2006, it is stated that once the second marriage with Smt.Jalaja has not been proven in either the departmental or criminal proceedings, the allegation that the petitioner married one Smt.Padmaja is wholly erroneous and irrational. The petitioner’s marriage with Smt.Padmaja took place on 14.04.2006, when the petitioner was under dismissal from service. The petitioner was dismissed from service on 25.02.2003 and was reinstated into service on 01.05.2007. The marriage was declared null and void by the Additional Family Court in O.P.No.447 of 2013, dated 09.07.2014. Regarding the same allegation, this Court quashed the criminal proceedings in Crl.P.No.2004 of 2013. The petitioner was dismissed from service on 25.02.2003 and was reinstated into service on 01.05.2007. The marriage was declared null and void by the Additional Family Court in O.P.No.447 of 2013, dated 09.07.2014. Regarding the same allegation, this Court quashed the criminal proceedings in Crl.P.No.2004 of 2013. (f) Regarding the allegation that the petitioner initially furnished the name of Smt.Ganga Manohari @ Renuka for LTC, and later furnished the name of Smt.Sumalatha, at the time of submitting the pension papers, it is stated that at the time of availing LTC, the petitioner’s marriage with to Smt.Ganga Manohari was subsisting and at the time of submission of pension papers, Smt.Sumalatha is his wife. Regarding the aforementioned incident, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide proceedings dated 01.07.2008 and later reinstated as per the proceedings of the 2 nd respondent dated 08.10.2012. The proceedings against the petitioner were dropped on 28.05.2013, and the period of suspension was treated as on duty. Therefore, it is not open for the respondents to once again frame the very same charge and cause a second enquiry. (g) In respect of Cr.No.189 of 2011, which was filed by the petitioner’s present wife on 05.06.2011, it is stated that this court quashed the criminal proceedings, therefore, no criminal proceedings are pending against the petitioner in this regard. Thus, the petitioner has not violated Rule 25 of the Conduct Rules, which is to prevent bigamous marriages. The 3 rd respondent, without considering the above facts, issued the impugned charge memo mechanically. (h) The petitioner has submitted an explanation to the charge memo and requested the 3 rd respondent to drop further proceedings. In this regard, the petitioner also represented through the proper channel to the 2 nd respondent inter alia stating that since the petitioner was acquitted in criminal cases and proceedings were dropped, the 3rd respondent has no power to initiate proceedings against the petitioner. Without considering the petitioner’s explanation, the 3rd respondent has mechanically appointed the enquiry officer on 31.08.2016 to conduct enquiry. The very appointment of an enquiry officer is in gross violation of Rule 20 of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991. The 5th respondent, without considering the above facts, issued the impugned Memorandum, dated 19.08.2024. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. The very appointment of an enquiry officer is in gross violation of Rule 20 of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991. The 5th respondent, without considering the above facts, issued the impugned Memorandum, dated 19.08.2024. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the criminal cases initiated against the petitioner are ended in acquittal, continuing the disciplinary proceedings on the very same set of facts is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the proceedings dated 19.08.2024 and allow the writ petition. 4. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating as follows :- (a) The contention of the petitioner that the 3 rd respondent has no power or authority or jurisdiction either to appoint or to initiate any proceedings muchless disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner is not correct. Infact, the 2 nd respondent vide proceedings dated 25.07.2012 has delegated powers to the 3 rd respondent stating that due to administrative exigencies, the unit of SARCPL, Amberpet, Hyderabad, is brought under the administrative control of the 3 rd respondent with immediate effect as was done in the earlier proceedings by exercising the powers in Order No.33(4) of Andhra Pradesh Police Manual Vol-1. Pursuant to the said orders, the Additional Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh Special Police Battalions, Hyderabad, issued proceedings dated 27.07.2012. Thereafter, the 2 nd respondent issued proceedings dated 31.12.2012 stating that if the appeal/revision petitions were either modified/rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Andhra Pradesh Special Police Battalions, on the punishment imposed on SARCPL personnel, the appeal/revision would lie before the 3 rd respondent. (b) In exercise of the powers delegated to the 3rd respondent, the 3 rd respondent issued an Article of Charge under Rule 20 of the Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991, against the petitioner on 09.06.2016, stating that while working as RSI, he performed four marriages on the written complaints given by his three wives, three cases i.e., Cr.Nos.42 of 1996, 323 of 2008 and 189 of 2011 were registered against the petitioner and this court disposed of the same. (c) The petitioner filed a representation on 31.05.2013 and also filed O.A.No.7559 of 2013 before the Tribunal, requesting that further action be dropped in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. (c) The petitioner filed a representation on 31.05.2013 and also filed O.A.No.7559 of 2013 before the Tribunal, requesting that further action be dropped in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. The Tribunal passed orders directing the respondents to dispose of the said representation within a period of four weeks. As no disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner at that time, no action was taken against him, based on the Tribunal’s order and the petitioner’s representation. Later, the respondents came to know about the alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner and also about the misconduct of the rules and involvement in earlier criminal cases in respect of bigamous marriages. The petitioner had performed four marriages with different women without taking prior permission from the Department, which is mandatory for a Government employee as per Rule 25 of the Conduct Rules, 1964. The petitioner neither obtained prior written permission nor intimated to the department about performing of his marriages. (d) At the time of availing LTC, the petitioner showed Smt.M.Renuka as his wife, and while submitting his pension papers to the Department, he nominated Smt.Sumalatha as his wife. As per his will, he performed several marriages without adhering to the rules framed by the Government. The petitioner has neither obtained permission for marriages from the Department nor informed the Department about the criminal case registered against him at the initial stage. (e) Rule 25 of Telangana Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, stated as follows :- "No Government employee who has a wife living shall contract another marriage without first obtaining the permission of the Government, notwithstanding that such subsequent marriage is permissible under the personal law for the time being applicable to him. Provided that where the personal law provides for second or subsequent marriage, the Government employee shall while seeking permission to contract another marriage, produce documentary evidence in support of "Divorce or Talaq" in respect of previous marriage and the manner in which the same was secured or pronounced and intimated to the first or former wife". (f) Thus, the petitioner had exhibited gross misconduct and criminal attitude, which is unbecoming of a Government servant and involved himself in moral turpitude. (f) Thus, the petitioner had exhibited gross misconduct and criminal attitude, which is unbecoming of a Government servant and involved himself in moral turpitude. His despicable behaviour is unbecoming of a member of a disciplined force and tarnishes the image of the Police in public and thereby, the petitioner had willfully contravened Rule 3 (1), (2) & (3) and 25 of Telangana Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. (g) The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence on 01.07.2016, denying the charges levelled against him. The 5 th respondent was appointed as an Enquiry Officer vide proceedings dated 31.08.2016, under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 20 of the Rules, to investigate the allegations levelled against the petitioner. While the oral enquiry was in progress, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.42696 of 2016. This Court passed an interim order on 09.12.2016, based on which, the oral enquiry was kept in abeyance. Thereafter, the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. (h) In view of the dismissal of the above writ petition, vide Office Memo dated 01.07.2021, the 5th respondent was directed to proceed further in the oral enquiry against the petitioner. The 5th respondent vide proceedings dated 12.01.2024, requested to nominate one Presenting Officer to conduct an oral enquiry against the petitioner. (i) The relevant Rule position regarding appointment of Presenting Officer i.e., Rule 20 (5) of TCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991, reads as follows :- (b) Where the Government Servant appears before the disciplinary authority and pleads not guilty to the charges or refuses or omits to plead, the disciplinary authority shall record the plea and obtain signature of the Government servant thereon and may decide to hold the inquiry itself or if it consider necessary to do so appoint a serving or retired Government servant as inquiring authority for holding the inquiry into the charges and also appoint a Government servant as Presenting Officer to present the case in support of the articles of charge and adjourn the case to a date not exceeding five days for the said purpose. (c) On the day so fixed, the disciplinary authority shall serve copies of the orders appointing the inquiring authority and the presenting officer on the Govt. Servant and inform him that he may take the assistance of any other Govt. Servant to present the case on his behalf, but he may not engage a retired Govt. (c) On the day so fixed, the disciplinary authority shall serve copies of the orders appointing the inquiring authority and the presenting officer on the Govt. Servant and inform him that he may take the assistance of any other Govt. Servant to present the case on his behalf, but he may not engage a retired Govt. servant or a legal practitioner for the purpose unless the presenting officer appointed by the disciplinary authority is one such, or, the disciplinary authority, having regard to the circumstances of the case, so permits". Provided that no Government servant dealing in his official capacity with the case of inquiry relating to the person charged or any officer to whom an appeal may be preferred shall be permitted by the inquiring authority to appear on behalf of the person charged before the inquiring authority. Provided further that the Government servant may take the assistance of any other Government servant posted at any other station, if the inquiring authority having regard to the circumstances of the case and for reasons to be recorded in writing, so permits. Note (1): The Government servant shall not take the other Government servant who has pending two disciplinary which he has to give assistance. Note (2): The Government servant may also take the as in retired government servant to present the case on his behalf subject conditions as may be specified by the Government from time to time general or special order in this behalf. Provisions of nominating Presenting officer as per circular Memo, No. 10245/Ser.C/2005-2, dated 07-02-2011 of General Administration (SER.C) Department, which may please be seen at flag "A" as follows:- "(a) The Disciplinary authority shall appoint a Government servant or where he considers it necessary, a legally trained Govt. servant or a legal practitioner as 'Presenting Officer, to present the case in support of the Articles of charge. The order of appointment of Presenting Officer shall be issued in the Form-V annexed to G.O. Ms. No. 82, General Admn. (Ser.C) Department, dt. 1-3-1996 or in the Form-13 of Part-1l of Volume-II of Vigilance Manual. The Presenting Officer should be senior to the Charged Govt. Servant and occupying a higher rank than the Charged Officer. The Disciplinary authority shall serve copies of the orders appointing the Presenting Officer on the Government servant and also forward to the Enquiring Authority". (Ser.C) Department, dt. 1-3-1996 or in the Form-13 of Part-1l of Volume-II of Vigilance Manual. The Presenting Officer should be senior to the Charged Govt. Servant and occupying a higher rank than the Charged Officer. The Disciplinary authority shall serve copies of the orders appointing the Presenting Officer on the Government servant and also forward to the Enquiring Authority". (j) As such, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (5) of Rule 20 of Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, one Sri Md. Ashfaq, Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police, South West Zone, Hyderabad, was appointed as the Presenting Officer vide office proceedings dated 01.03.2024. The oral enquiry is pending with the Inquiring Authority. (h) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Memorandum dated 09.06.2016 and the Memorandum dated 19.08.2024 issued by the 3 rd respondent and the 5 th respondent. (i) The issue regarding simultaneous proceedings against a delinquent officer under the Conduct Rules and the corresponding criminal trial is no longer a res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court declared the law that since criminal trials take a very long time, it is advisable to conclude disciplinary proceedings and deal with delinquents at the earliest point of time. The standard of proof required in a departmental proceeding is minimal. The departmental enquiry is a fact finding mission to ascertain the facts, and test the integrity and devotion to duty of the employee. Once the employer based on the available material, comes to the conclusion that the delinquent officer has exhibited conduct that is unbecoming of public servant, the disciplinary authority will proceed to take action against the delinquent. In a criminal trial, the objective is to convict the accused only when the available material establishes the charge against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Similarity in charge is no ground to suspend disciplinary proceedings for an indefinite period, as it would create a vacuum in the service of the delinquent employee. (j) Criminal proceedings and the departmental proceedings can proceed simultaneously. Criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings are distinct and different jurisdictional areas. In the departmental proceedings, a charge relating to misconduct is being investigated, and the factors influencing the disciplinary authority’s decision may be numerous, such as enforcing discipline or assessing the level of integrity of the delinquent or other staff members. Criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings are distinct and different jurisdictional areas. In the departmental proceedings, a charge relating to misconduct is being investigated, and the factors influencing the disciplinary authority’s decision may be numerous, such as enforcing discipline or assessing the level of integrity of the delinquent or other staff members. The standard of proof required in those proceedings differs from that needed for a criminal case. In departmental proceedings, the standard of evidence is one of the preponderance of probabilities, whereas in a criminal case, the charge has to be proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. (k) Departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously, and there is no bar to conducting them separately and concurrently. The Apex Court took a similar view in various judgments. Therefore, the criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings are entirely different. The issue regarding the conduct of simultaneous proceedings against a delinquent officer under the Conduct Rules and the corresponding criminal trial is no longer a res integra. The Apex Court declared that, since criminal trials take a very long time, it is advisable to conclude disciplinary proceedings and deal with delinquents at the earliest point of time. The petitioner cannot take advantage of his own wrong and seek stay of disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner, being in the Police Force, cannot be allowed to bring disrepute to the department by indulging in unethical and illegal activities, which are in violation of Conduct Rules. The reference to Police Standing Orders for staying departmental proceedings is misconceived, and there is no prohibition under standing orders to conduct a departmental enquiry, while a criminal case is pending. (l) In compliance with the order of this Court dated 30.08.2024, the 5 th respondent was requested not to proceed with the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner, vide proceedings dated 09.06.2016 until further orders. (m) The Hon’ble Apex Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs. M.G. Vittal Rao (Civil Appeal No. 9933 of 2011) held as follows :- “Acquittal by a criminal Court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with the Rules and Regulations in force. The two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. The two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on the offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with the service rules. In a criminal trial, incriminating statement made by the accused in certain circumstances de before certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused "beyond reasonable doubt", he cannot be convicted by a Court of law. In a departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of "preponderance of probability." (n) Therefore, the allegations made by the petitioner are false and far from the truth. The oral enquiry was ordered, as per the Rules, enabling the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to defend himself during the oral enquiry. There is nothing illegal on the part of the respondents in issuing the impugned order, as the disciplinary action was taken against the petitioner was strictly in accordance with the Telangana State Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. In a criminal case, it is a punishment for crime, whereas in the departmental proceedings, it is a penalty for misconduct and about the suitability of the employee to work. 5. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the 5 th respondent has rightly passed the impugned proceedings dated 19.08.2024 and therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard Sri V.Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents and perused the record. 7. On 30.08.2024, this Court, while issuing notice before admission, granted an interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to Memorandums dated 09.06.2016 and 19.08.2024 issued by respondent Nos.3 and 5, respectively. 8. 6. Heard Sri V.Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents and perused the record. 7. On 30.08.2024, this Court, while issuing notice before admission, granted an interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to Memorandums dated 09.06.2016 and 19.08.2024 issued by respondent Nos.3 and 5, respectively. 8. The petitioner contends that once this Court disposed the criminal case, the question of continuing of disciplinary proceedings would not arise in the eye of law. It is settled law that once a criminal case is ended in acquittal in the petitioner’s favour, continuing disciplinary proceedings on the same set of facts would amount to double jeopardy. 9. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Services (Home) submits that as per Rule 25 of the Telangana Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, ‘no Government employee, who has a living wife shall contract another marriage without obtaining the permission from the Government, notwithstanding that such subsequent marriage is permissible to the petitioner under the personal law existing at that time. Provided that where the personal law provides for second or subsequent marriage, the Government employee shall while seeking permission to contract another marriage, produce documentary evidence in support of “Divorce or Talaq” in respect of previous marriage and the manner in which the same was secured or pronounced and intimated to the first or former wife’. Therefore, the petitioner exhibited gross misconduct and criminal attitude, which is unbecoming of a Government servant and involved himself in moral turpitude. His despicable behaviour is unbecoming of a member of a disciplined force and tarnishes the image of the Police in public, and therefore, the petitioner had willfully contravened Rule 3(1), (2) and (3) and 25 of Telangana Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. 10. The respondents’ above contentions cannot be accepted, as the situation is different today. As on today, all cases filed by both sides through criminal proceedings and divorce OPs., have been quashed, acquitted, and positive orders have been issued in favour of the petitioner on different dates. The petitioner obtained a divorce from Smt.Ganga Manohari @ Renuka on 09.04.2013. The Criminal Appeal was allowed on 20.04.2026, the marriage with Smt.Padmaja was declared as null and void on 09.07.2014 and the criminal petition filed by the petitioner was quashed on 09.04.2013 by the respective Courts. About Smt.Jalaja, there is no dispute between her and the petitioner. 11. The petitioner obtained a divorce from Smt.Ganga Manohari @ Renuka on 09.04.2013. The Criminal Appeal was allowed on 20.04.2026, the marriage with Smt.Padmaja was declared as null and void on 09.07.2014 and the criminal petition filed by the petitioner was quashed on 09.04.2013 by the respective Courts. About Smt.Jalaja, there is no dispute between her and the petitioner. 11. The above facts clearly support the petitioner’s contention that continuing the disciplinary proceedings on the same set of facts would amount to double jeopardy. Based on the above facts, knowingly and unknowingly, the respondent authorities issued proceedings against the petitioner, knowingly and unknowingly, pursuant to Memorandum P.R.No.51/2016/No.L&O/BS/Tr/1736/2-13-16, dated 09.06.2016, and Memorandum No.HCP/NZ/HN1/OE/621/2021, dated 19.08.2024 issued by respondent Nos.3 and 5 are not sustainable and the same are liable to be set aside. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside Memorandums dated 09.06.2016 and 19.08.2024 issued by respondent Nos.3 and 5 respectively. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.