ORDER : Pulla Karthik, J. Aggrieved by the action of respondent No.2 in passing the impugned proceedings No.604/T4/2024, dated 16.11.2024, confirming the order of dismissal of petitioner from service passed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 vide orders dated 19.06.2024 and 20.06.2024, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2) Heard Sri A.Ravinder Reddy, learned senior counsel, representing Mr. Veera Savan Chakravarthy Dara, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services (Home) for respondents. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while the petitioner was working as Sub-Inspector of Police at PS Kaleshwaram, respondent No.3 has dismissed the petitioner from service vide proceedings dated 19.06.2024 and on the very next day i.e. on 20.06.2024, respondent No.4 has passed the consequential order dismissing the petitioner from service on the allegation that a case in crime No.42/2024 dated 19.06.2024 is registered against him for the offence punishable under Sections 449, 376 (2), 324 and 506 of Indian Penal Code at P.S. Kaleswaram, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District. Learned senior counsel has contended that the said crime is registered based on the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant with all baseless, false, incorrect and concocted allegations in order to damage his service in the Department and reputation in the Society. Learned senior counsel has contended that even without issuing any charge memo or causing any enquiry under Telangana State Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (in short ‘CCA Rules’), respondents 3 and 4 have straight away issued the impugned orders dismissing the petitioner from service on untenable ground that gullible women victim might not come forward to depose evidence against the petitioner in the alleged sexual offences, which ground is neither genuine nor relevant for respondent No.3 to exercise the power under Rule 25 (ii) of CCA Rules. Further, respondents 3 and 4 have referred to crime No.42 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 449, 376 (2) (a) (b), 324 and 506 of Indian Penal Code in the impugned dismissal orders, however, the petitioner has nothing to do with the said crime. Further, aggrieved by the dismissal order, dated 19.06.2024, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before respondent No.2. Further, aggrieved by the dismissal order, dated 19.06.2024, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before respondent No.2. But, without considering the grounds of appeal and without conducting any enquiry, the appellate authority has rejected the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 16.11.2024, which is illegal, arbitrary and violative of CCA Rules besides violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 311 of Constitution of India. Further, respondent No.2 has not assigned any reasons while dismissing the appeal, which is non est in the eye of law and is in violation of principles of natural justice. Further, respondent No.2 has failed to note that the power under Rule 25 (ii) of the CCA Rules read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India is an exception where a normal procedure of giving a reasonable opportunity to an employee in disciplinary inquiry is not reasonably possible for reasons to be recorded of his satisfaction to that effect. But, in the instant case, absolutely no factual foundation to dispense with the inquiry and the reasons given therefor are not relevant and not germane to exercise the said power. Learned senior counsel has further contended that respondent No.3 is not the appointing authority in case of the petitioner. As such, the dismissal order passed by respondent No.3 is ultra vires. Further, the suspension order dated 19.06.2024 as well as the reasons given for dispensing with the inquiry are contrary to the facts within the knowledge of respondent No.3 as it is evident from the statement of witnesses and the complainant in crime No.42/2024. Therefore, respondent No.3 has illegally and without jurisdiction has exercised the power vested under Rule 25 (ii) of the CCA Rules and Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India as if the petitioner is convicted in the criminal case. 3.1) Learned senior counsel has further contended that in an identical issue, this Court in W.P.No.32468 of 2023 vide order dated 03.01.2025 by placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satyavir Singh v. Union of India , 1985 (4) SCC 252 Jaswanti Singh v. State of Punjab , (1991) 1 SCC 362 and V.Bhushanam v. Divisional Security Commissioner, Railways Protection Force, Vijayawada, 2003 (3) ALD 150 , has set aside the impugned dismissal order therein holding that no justifiable reasons were assigned for dispensing with the regular inquiry. Therefore, the learned senior counsel prayed to set aside the impugned orders and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits. 4) Per contra, the learned Government Pleader has submitted that one Mrs.Boojagundla Rama, Woman Head Consable-693, working in PS Kaleshwaram, has lodged a complaint, dated 19.06.2024, stating that on 15.06.2024 while she was sleeping at her quarter, the petitioner, who was residing in second floor of the same building, at about 0100 hours on 16.06.2024 has trespassed into her room through window, threatened her at the point of Service Revolver, beat her and committed rape upon her. Further, while leaving the room at about 0215 hours, he also threatened her with dire consequences. Based on the said complaint, a case in crime No.42/2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 449, 376 (2) (a) (b), 324 and 506 of Indian Penal Code is registered against the petitioner at PS Kaleshwaram. During the investigation, it is revealed that the complainant is residing in one of the rooms situated in ground floor of Old Kaleshwaram PS Building, Lakshmi Pump House of Kaleshwaram Town, whereas the petitioner is residing alone in second floor of the said building. Except the complainant and petitioner, no one is residing in the said building. Taking advantage of the same, about 20 days prior to the present incident, the petitioner, under the pretext of slipping on the floor, has called the complainant and asked her to come to his room. When the complainant visited his room, the petitioner asked her to do massage to his leg and seduced her sexually. On noticing the same, the complainant escaped and rushed to her room. Again, on 16.06.2024 at about 0100 hours, the petitioner has criminally trespassed into the room of the complainant through the window slide, beat her with hands, threatened her at the point of his Service Revolver and committed rape upon her. 4.1) Learned Government Pleader has further contended that earlier, on 22.06.2022 the accused stalked one Dharma Manasa, which is the subject matter of crime No.120/2022 of PS Rebbena registered for the offence punishable under Section 354-D of Indian Penal Code. Similarly, he also harassed the maid servant Athkuri Rajitha, who is the wife of Athkuri Suman, working as Sweeper in PS Kaleshwaram. Similarly, he also harassed the maid servant Athkuri Rajitha, who is the wife of Athkuri Suman, working as Sweeper in PS Kaleshwaram. Due to such sexual harassment, the said victim has stopped her services to the petitioner, however, she has not come forwarded to lodge any complaint. Further, the petitioner has been habitually indulging in the acts of outraging modesty/sexual luring/sexual assaults against the women using his official position as SI of Police. It is further submitted that during April, 2022, also the petitioner had acted indecently with women police staff working in Rebbena PS of Asifabad District while he was working as SHO. Similarly, in June, 2022, he sexually outraged the modesty of an young woman, who was preparing for competitive exams, and in connection with said incident, a criminal case was also registered. Thereafter, the petitioner has sexually assaulted the women HC working in PS Kaleshwaram. Thus, he is habitually indulged in committing sexual offences against women. This apart, several unreported cases of such a nature are against the petitioner. As such, the Department has opined that it is not practically possible to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner as the gullible women may not come forward to give evidence against the petitioner in sexual offences. In those circumstances, the petitioner was dismissed from service forthwith vide impugned proceedings dated 19.06.2024 and 20.06.2024 by invoking Article 311 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that the petitioner has committed grave reprehensible acts and misconduct thereby involved in the aforesaid crime and exhibited criminal misconduct by sexually assaulting the complainant. Therefore, it is a case of moral turpitude on the part of the petitioner in sexually assaulting a woman and threatening to kill her. The nature of offence committed by the petitioner speaks of his criminal tendency and moral turpitude. Further, Police Force is a disciplined force and people repose great faith and confidence in it. It shoulders the great responsibility of maintaining law and order and public order in the Society and providing safety and security to the citizens. As such, it must be worthy of such confidence and persons working in Police Force must be of utmost impeccable character, manners, rectitude and integrity to provide protection to the people especially women in their hour of need. As such, it must be worthy of such confidence and persons working in Police Force must be of utmost impeccable character, manners, rectitude and integrity to provide protection to the people especially women in their hour of need. Therefore, continuation of the petitioner in the Police department will be detrimental to the department as well as general public. Therefore, the misconduct of the petitioner is unacceptable in the Society, which warrants deterrent disciplinary action to maintain discipline in the Force and keep its moral to the expectations of the people. In view of such serious and sensitive nature of offences committed by the petitioner, it would be impractical to conduct an enquiry as the victims would not be forthcoming to depose against the petitioner by virtue of the stigma they would face in the Society and therefore it was opined that it will not be reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry against the delinquent. Hence, respondent No.3 was constrained to invoke the provision of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and rightly imposed the punishment of dismissal from service and the same was rightly confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 16.11.2024 holding that the petitioner herein had degraded the police image on uniform services. It is further contended that as per G.O.Ms.No.30, Home (Legal) Department, dated 15.07.2022, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Zone-I, Kaleshwaram, is designated as Appointing Authority for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. The Inspector General of Police, Multi Zone-I, TG, Hyderabad, is made In-charge for Zone-I Kaleshwaram as Deputy Inspector General of Police temporarily vide Memo Rc.No.9/G1/2023, dated 03.02.2023, of the Director General of Police, Telangana, Hyderabad. Therefore, the order of dismissal from service passed by respondent No.3 under Article 311 of the Constitution of India, for the grave offence committed by the petitioner, holds good, as per Rules. It is further contended that the judgments relied by the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case and each case has to be decided on its own merits. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 5) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective counsel and perused the material on record. It is further contended that the judgments relied by the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case and each case has to be decided on its own merits. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 5) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective counsel and perused the material on record. 6) A perusal of the record discloses that initially the petitioner was appointed as Police Civil Constable on 14.10.1993, promoted as Head Constable on 01.08.2009, further promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police on 05.11.2014 and as Sub-Inspector of Police on 31.12.2018. While he was working at PS Kaleshwaram as Sub-Inspector of Police, a complaint has been lodged by one Rama, who was working as Woman Head Constable at Kaleshwaram PS, alleging that on 16.06.2024 at about 0100 hour, the petitioner-accused has criminally trespassed into her room through the window slide, beat her with hands, threatened her at the point of his Service Revolver and committed rape upon her. Based on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.42/2024 dated 19.06.2024 has been registered for the offence punishable under Sections 449, 376 (2) (a) (b), 324 and 506 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner at PS Kaleshwaram. During the course of investigation into the said crime, several reported as well as unreported incidents of similar nature came into light. Considering all those factors, the impugned orders were passed by the respondents, in their wisdom, dismissing the petitioner from service by invoking the power vested under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The reasons assigned in the impugned orders for passing of dismissal orders are extracted for better appreciation of the matter: “The conduct of P.V.S. Bhavani Sen SI of Police, Kaleswaram PS is extremely reprehensible. The SI has been habitually indulging in acts of outraging modesty/sexual luring/sexual assault against women using his official position as SI of Police. In April 2022, he had acted indecently with women staff working in Rebbena PS of Asifabad District while he was SHO. In June 2022 he has sexually outraged the modesty of a women in a criminal case was booked. Now he has sexually assaulted the women HC working in PS Kaleswaram. Sri Bhavani Sen SI of Police is habitually into misusing his official position and indulging in sexual offences against women. In June 2022 he has sexually outraged the modesty of a women in a criminal case was booked. Now he has sexually assaulted the women HC working in PS Kaleswaram. Sri Bhavani Sen SI of Police is habitually into misusing his official position and indulging in sexual offences against women. Apart from these reported acts, there are many unreported cases of such nature against the SI of Police. I deem that, it is not practicable to conduct enquiry against the SI of Police as gullible women might not come forward to depose evidence against him in the sexual offences involved. In such circumstances I deem it appropriate to dismiss P.V.S. Bhavani Sen SI of Police from service forthwith under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Hence P.V.S. Bhavani Sen SI of Police, PS Kaleswaram of Jayashankar Bhupalpally, Zone-I is dismissed from service with immediate effect.” (emphasis supplied) 7) As can be gathered from the above, it is thus clear that the petitioner has been indulging in a nature of these cases from the year 2022, from which, it can be construed that the petitioner has been indulging in these type of offences after his promotion as Sub- Inspector of Police on 31.12.2018. Therefore, inference can easily be drawn that the petitioner has been misusing his official position for committing such offences. 8) Further, while passing the orders dated 19.06.2024 and 20.06.2024, the respondent authorities have indicated the following reason for invoking Article 311 of the Constitution of India and the same reads as under: “The conduct of P.V.S. Bhavani Sen SI of Police, Kaleswaram PS is extremely reprehensible……….. Apart from these reported acts, there are many unreported cases of such nature against the SI of Police. I deem that, it is not practicable to conduct enquiry against the SI of Police as gullible women might not come forward to depose evidence against him in the sexual offences involved. In such circumstances I deem it appropriate to dismiss P.V.S. Bhavani Sen SI of Police from service forthwith under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. I deem that, it is not practicable to conduct enquiry against the SI of Police as gullible women might not come forward to depose evidence against him in the sexual offences involved. In such circumstances I deem it appropriate to dismiss P.V.S. Bhavani Sen SI of Police from service forthwith under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Hence P.V.S. Bhavani Sen SI of Police, PS Kaleswaram of Jayashankar Bhupalpally, Zone-I is dismissed from service with immediate effect.” (emphasis supplied) 9) In this context, this Court feels it necessary to refer Article 311 of the Constitution of India as well as Rule 25 of The Telangana State Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, which read as under: “ 311. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State. (1) … (2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges; Provided that where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed: Provided further that this clause shall not apply— (a) … ; or (b) where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or (c)….” 25. Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 20 to rule 24 – (i) … (ii) where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonable practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules, or (iii) …. The disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders there on as it deems fit. 10) In the instant case, it is to be noted that the complainant- victim in crime No.42/2024 dated 19.06.2024 is the subordinate of the petitioner and she has lodged the complaint on 19.06.2024 reporting the incident occurred on 16.06.2024. The disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders there on as it deems fit. 10) In the instant case, it is to be noted that the complainant- victim in crime No.42/2024 dated 19.06.2024 is the subordinate of the petitioner and she has lodged the complaint on 19.06.2024 reporting the incident occurred on 16.06.2024. According to the victim, due to fear and after discussing with her husband, she came forward to lodge a complaint against the petitioner. It is the specific case of the respondents that similar offences committed by the petitioner were not reported as the victims have not come forward to lodge a complaint against the petitioner. In a nature of these offences, for several reasons, it is not expected that all the victims would come forward to report the incident especially against a person like the petitioner, who is discharging the official duties as Sub-Inspector of Police. When that be so, as rightly opined by the respondent authorities, the gullible woman may not come forward to depose evidence against the petitioner especially in a nature of this case. Therefore, this Court is in agreement with the view taken by the respondent authorities that it is not practically possible to conduct enquiry against the petitioner owing to the nature of allegations and the nature of evidence to be deposed by the victims during such enquiry. 11) A Police Officer, being the member of a Disciplined Force, cannot be expected to be involved in a nature of these offences. The gravity of the offences committed by the petitioner as well as the damage caused to the image of the department have been weighed by the authorities for invoking Article 311 of the Constitution of India in order to create a feeling of safety and security in the minds of the public at large and the women, in particular, which bonafide act of the authorities cannot be faulted with in the interest of justice. 12) Coming to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satyavir Singh’s case , Jaswanti Singh’s case and V.Bhushanam’s case (referred supra) relied by the learned senior counsel, with due respect, this Court is in complete agreement with the ratio laid down in those judgments. But, the said cases are distinguishable on facts of the present case. 12) Coming to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satyavir Singh’s case , Jaswanti Singh’s case and V.Bhushanam’s case (referred supra) relied by the learned senior counsel, with due respect, this Court is in complete agreement with the ratio laid down in those judgments. But, the said cases are distinguishable on facts of the present case. 13) Coming to the order dated 03.01.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.32468 of 2023 wherein much reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was a case where there was only one victim and that too her husband was the accused in criminal cases investigated by the petitioner therein. In such circumstances, this Court has opined that there is nothing to prevent the victim therein to appear before the Disciplinary Authority to depose evidence. But, in the present case, there are several incidents of sexually assaulting the women, both reported as well as unreported, alleged against the petitioner. Therefore, the facts in both the cases are distinguishable and the reliance placed by the learned senior counsel is misplaced and cannot be countenanced. 14) For the afore-mentioned reasons, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the impugned orders and therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 15) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.