K.Nageswar Rao vs The State Of Telangana on 3 January, 2025

Telangana High Court

K.Nageswar Rao vs The State Of Telangana on 3 January, 2025

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

               WRIT PETITION No.32468 of 2023

ORDER:

Heard Sri M.Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel

representing Sri Ch.Venkat Raman, learned counsel for the

petitioners, and learned Special Government Pleader for Home,

appearing for the respondents.

2. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, is filed seeking the following relief:

“…to issue a Writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ
of Certiorari calling for the records of the impugned appellate order
Proceedings No.58/T3/2023 of the 2nd respondent, dated 28.06.2023
communicated by the 4th respondent on 17.08.2023 vide D.O.No.7835
No.L&O/B8/225/202223 confirming the order of dismissal from service
dated 29.09.2022 passed by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.640/PR-
06/WZ(MZ-II)2022 RO.No.255/2022 invoking 25 (ii) of Telangana State
Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991 and Article 311 (2) (b) of the
Constitution of India, as illegal, without jurisdiction, outside the scope of
Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India read with Rule 25 (II) of
Telangana State Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991 and in violation of
settled law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v.
Tuliram Patel reported in (1985) 3 SCC 398 and Satyavir Singh and others
v. Union of India and others reported in 1985 (4) SCC 252 and
W.P.No.12353 of 2011, dated 14.10.2016 and consequently quash the
same by directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all
consequential benefits…”

2

PK.J
wp_32468_2023

3. According to the petitioner, he was initially appointed as

Police Constable in 1st Battalion A.P.S.P. during the year 1994 in

the composite State of Andhra Pradesh and after completion of

training, on 16.07.1995 he was deputed to work in Grey Hounds.

While he was working in Grey Hounds, in recognition of his

outstanding performance, he was given promotion as Head

Constable vide G.O.Ms.No.260, Home (SC.A) Department, dated

10.09.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner was selected as Sub-

Inspector of Police (Civil) by the State Level Police Recruitment

Board in the year 2004 in Zone-VI vide proceedings dated

01.08.2004. Subsequently, he was promoted as Inspector of

Police vide proceedings, dated 15.05.2013 and worked as such till

the order of dismissal was passed by the Inspector General of

Police I/C, West Zone, dated 29.09.2022. It is averred that the

petitioner is the recipient of A.P. Police Seva Pathakam (2014),

Uthama Seva Pathakam (02.06.2020), (85) cash rewards, (33)

GSEs (Good Service Entries), (01) MSE (Meritorious Service Entry),

(03) Commendations and (02) Appreciations. In the year 2002, he

was awarded Police (Antrik Suraksha Seva) Pathakam, keeping in

view his performance in counter insurgency operations. The

petitioner while working as Inspector of Police, Marredpally Police
3
PK.J
wp_32468_2023

Station, the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, has issued

proceedings in D.O.No.5888/No.L&O/B8/225/2022, dated

09.07.2022, placing him under suspension on the ground that he

was involved in a criminal case vide Crime No.875 of 2022 for the

offences punishable under Sections 452, 376 (2), 307, 448 and

365 of Indian Penal Code and Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959,

on the file of Vanasthalipuram Police Station, Rachakonda

Commissionerate.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that he came to know

that the accused in Crime No.270 of 2022, Crime No.32 of 2018

and Crime No.53 of 2018 have conspired together and falsely

implicated the petitioner in the subject crime with a view to

damage his service in the department and reputation in the

society, to wreak vengeance and as a counter blast. The petitioner

came to know that the complainant in all the crimes is in the

habit of giving similar complaints. Respondent No.3, without

issuing any charge memo or causing any enquiry under the

Telangana State Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)

Rules, 1991 (for short, ‘the Rules, 1991’) has issued the impugned

order, dated 29.09.2022, dismissing the petitioner from service

stating that under Rule 25 (2) Rules, 1991, it is not necessary to
4
PK.J
wp_32468_2023

hold regular enquiry and that the suspension period from

13.07.2022 till receipt of dismissal order is treated as not on duty.

5. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the petitioner has filed

an appeal, dated 07.01.2023, before respondent No.2. But,

respondent No.2, without considering the same, vide proceedings

No.58/T3/2023, dated 28.06.2023, confirmed the order of

dismissal, dated 29.09.2022 passed by respondent No.3 vide

Rc.No.640/PR-06/WZ (MZ-II) 2022, RO.No.255/2022. Aggrieved

by the order passed by respondent No.2, the petitioner is before

this Court.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has

submitted that the ground taken by respondent No.3 in the

impugned order of dismissal i.e. it would be impracticable to

conduct an enquiry against the petitioner as the victim would not

be coming forward to depose against him by virtue of the stigma

she would face in society, appears to be neither a genuine nor a

relevant reason to exercise the power under Rule 25 (ii) of the

Rules, 1991 in view of the fact that the Investigating Officer in

Crime No.875 of 2022 has examined the complainant, her

husband, brother and several other witnesses under Section 161
5
PK.J
wp_32468_2023

of Cr.P.C. even before passing of dismissal order dated

29.09.2022. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellate

authority i.e. 2nd respondent also without considering the grounds

of appeal and without conducting any enquiry, has erroneously

passed the impugned non-speaking order, dated 28.06.2023,

rejecting appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the dismissal

order.

7. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the

decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satyavir Singh and

others v. Union of India and others 1 wherein it was held that

nature of the power under Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of

India is an emergency power that can only be exercised where it is

not reasonably practicable to hold enquiry and the said reasons to

be recorded in writing for dispensing with such enquiry in order of

punishment and that the High Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India has got power of review over the reasons

recorded as to whether the said reasons are genuine or not or

relevant or irrelevant for exercise of such power, whether it is not

practicable to hold such enquiry and it is further held that a post

decisional enquiry at appellate stage is to be held after the

1
1985 (4) SCC 252
6
PK.J
wp_32468_2023

situation has become normal and that even the final order passed

in appeal is subject to judicial review.

8. Learned counsel has further submitted that in appeal,

respondent No.2 vide proceedings No.58/T3/2023, dated

28.06.2023, has confirmed the dismissal order passed by

respondent No.3 vide Rc.No.640/PR-06/WZ(MZ-II)2022 RO.255/

2022, dated 29.09.2022, without assigning valid reasons.

Respondent No.2-appellate authority, without adverting to any

objections raised in the appeal, has passed the impugned non-

speaking order. Therefore, the impugned order passed by

respondent No.2 is non est in the eye of law and in violation of

principles of natural justice. Further the power of respondent

No.2 vested under Rule 25 (ii) of the Rules, 1991 read with Article

311 (2) (b) of Constitution of India is an exception where a normal

procedure of giving a reasonable opportunity to an employee in the

disciplinary enquiry is not reasonably practicable and for reasons

to be recorded of his satisfaction to that effect. In the instant

case, absolutely there is no factual foundation to dispense with

the enquiry and the reasons given therefor are not relevant and

not germane to exercise the power under Article 311 (2) (b) of the

Constitution of India. Respondent No.3 is not the appointing
7
PK.J
wp_32468_2023

authority and he is acting as only in-charge and therefore, the

order is totally without jurisdiction. Further the allegations made

in the suspension order, dated 09.07.2022, as well as the reasons

given for dispensing with the enquiry are contrary to the facts

within the knowledge of the 3rd respondent as evident from the

statements of witnesses including the complainant as well as her

husband recorded between 08.07.2022 to 19.09.2022 in Crime

No.875 to 2022 on the file of P.S. Vanasthalipuram, Rachakonda

Commissionerate. Therefore, the impugned order is passed on

irrelevant reasons and consideration, which are impermissible in

law. Further, respondent No.3 has exercised the power vested

under Rule 25 (ii) of the Rules, 1991 read with Article 311 (2) (b) of

the Constitution of India pending criminal case in Crime No.875 of

2022, as if there is a conviction under Article 311 (2) (a) of the

Constitution of India, which is totally illegal and without

jurisdiction.

9. Learned senior counsel has further contended that

respondent No.2 ought to have seen that even in cases where

witnesses could not come forward due to any terrorizing

circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the

Disciplinary authority has to conduct a regular enquiry even after
8
PK.J
wp_32468_2023

the order of dismissal after the situation has come to normal.

But, in the instant case, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not acted in

accordance with Rules, 1991 and therefore, the impugned order of

dismissal and appellate order confirming the said dismissal are

illegal, without jurisdiction and therefore are liable to be set aside.

10. Per contra, learned Special Government Pleader for Home,

appearing for the respondents has contended that on 08.07.2022

a complaint was received from the victim/complainant by the

Station House Officer, Vanasthalipuram Police Station,

Rachakonda Commissionerate, stating that in the year 2018,

Crime No.53 of 2018 of Begumpet Police Station and Crime No.32

of 2018 of Mahankali Police Station, were registered against her

husband by the Task Force Police and were investigated by the

petitioner. Thereafter, her husband was hired by the petitioner for

his farm house on monthly payment basis till February, 2021.

During the said period, the victim was forcibly brought to the

agricultural land of the petitioner, without the knowledge of her

husband. On knowing the same, her husband warned the

petitioner, due to which, the petitioner sent Inspector and Sub-

Inspector of Police to her house, took her husband to Task Force

Office, Hyderabad, beat him and took his pictures by placing
9
PK.J
wp_32468_2023

Ganja packets in his hands and also threatened him to register a

false case against him.

11. It is further contended that on 06.07.2022, the petitioner

made a WhatsApp call to the complainant and asked her to fulfil

his sexual desire using un-parliamentary language. She informed

the same to her husband, who was at his native place. Further,

on 07.07.2022, the petitioner has trespassed into her house, beat

her and forcibly exploited her sexually. Meantime, the husband of

the complainant came and beat the petitioner, for which, the

petitioner threatened herself and her husband to leave Hyderabad,

otherwise to register a brothel case against them and took them

away in his vehicle towards Ibrahimpatnam, where they met with

an accident at Ibrahimpatnam lake in the early hours on

08.07.2022, which is the subject matter of Crime No.282 of 2022

registered under Section 279 of IPC. Basing on the contents of the

complaint of the victim, a case in Crime No.875 of 2022 was

registered under Sections 452, 376 (2), 307, 448 and 365 IPC and

Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959, against the petitioner on the file

of Vanasthalipuram Police Station and investigated into. Learned

Government Pleader has strenuously contended that the petitioner

has committed grave reprehensible acts and misconduct, thereby
10
PK.J
wp_32468_2023

involving in the aforesaid crime for exhibiting criminal misconduct

by sexually assaulting the complainant, who is wife of an accused

in two crimes. Therefore, it is a case of grave moral turpitude on

the part of the petitioner in forcing a woman for satisfying his lust

and threatening to book a false case against her husband. The

nature of offences committed by the petitioner speaks about his

Criminal tendency and moral turpitude. Police is a disciplined

force and people repose great faith and confidence in it. It

shoulders 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 that 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. Persons of

such immoral behaviour and criminal nature will not only pose a

great threat to the discipline of police force, but also pull down the

very fabric of society causing great harm to the people especially

women. Hence, continuation of the petitioner in the police

department will be detrimental to the department as well as

general public. In fact, the petitioner has exhibited grave

misconduct, unbecoming of a Government servant and
11
PK.J
wp_32468_2023

unacceptable in the society, which warrants deterrent disciplinary

action to maintain discipline in the force and keep its moral to the

expectations of people. In view of the serious and sensitive nature

of offence committed by him, such an enquiry would be

impractical as the victim would not be forthcoming to depose

against him by virtue of the stigma she would face in the society

and it was opined that it will not be reasonably practicable to hold

an enquiry against the delinquent. Therefore, respondent No.3

was constrained to invoke the provisions of Rule 25 (ii) of the

Rules, 1991 read with Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of

India and imposed punishment of dismissal from service and the

same was confirmed by the appellate authority, vide order, dated

28.06.2023, in accordance with the Rules, 1991.

12. Further, the allegations made against the petitioner clearly

fall under the purview of Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of

India. In view of gravity of charges framed against the petitioner,

the respondents thought that it is not reasonably practicable to

conduct regular enquiry. Hence, the respondents have rightly

invoked Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India and

dismissed the petitioner from service and the same was confirmed

by the appellate authority in accordance with Rules. Therefore,
12
PK.J
wp_32468_2023

there are no merits in the writ petition and the same may be

dismissed. In support of his contentions, reliance has been placed

on the Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaswanti

Singh v. State of Punjab and others 2; Reena Rani v. State of

Haryana and others 3 and Risal Singh v. State of Haryana and

others 4.

13. This Court has taken note of the submissions made by the

respective counsel and perused the material on record.

14. Having regard to the submissions made by respective

counsel, this Court is of view that in this writ petition the only

issue to be adjudicated is ‘whether in the given facts of the case,

the disciplinary authority was justified in invoking Article 311 (2)

(b) of the Constitution of India’?.

15. For better appreciation of the matter, it is necessary to refer

Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India as well as relevant

portion of Rule 25 of The Telangana State Civil Services

(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, which read as

under:

2 (1991) 1 Supreme Court Cases 362
3 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 215
4 (2014) 13 Supreme Court Cases 244
13
PK.J
wp_32468_2023

“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.

Both the above provisions of law, clearly stipulate that any such

exercise of the special power vested with the disciplinary authority

shall be subject to complying the conditions envisaged thereunder.

To be specific, the Article as well as Rule require (i) satisfaction of

the disciplinary authority and (ii) recording of reasons in support of

its decision that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry.

Without fulfilling the said conditions, the disciplinary authority
14
PK.J
wp_32468_2023

cannot exercise its special power vested under the above

provisions of law for passing an order imposing the major

punishment of dismissal from service.

16. As noticed from the impugned order, the allegations levelled

against the petitioner that (1) he has exhibited criminal

misconduct by sexually assaulting complainant; (2) he forced the

complainant to satisfy his lust otherwise threatening to book a

false case against her husband (3) he has violated the

restrictions/conditions in using the weapon allotted to him, are

required to be considered and decided in a regular departmental

enquiry. Even the in-charge disciplinary authority ought not have

assumed, solely based on the complaint that too made by wife of

an accused in two criminal cases, that the petitioner is guilty of

the allegations levelled against him. Further, the reasons

assigned in the impugned order to invoke the provision under

Article 311(2) (b) of Constitution of India read with Rule 25(2) of

the Rules, 1991, are also not satisfactory. The disciplinary

authority can take extreme step by exercising the power vested

under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India only in

exceptional circumstances i.e., in case the petitioner does not
15
PK.J
wp_32468_2023

cooperate during course of enquiry and in case the whereabouts of

petitioner are not traceable/impossible to trace out.

17. In similar circumstances, in Jaswant Singh’s case (supra),

the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

“…The decision to dispense with the departmental enquiry cannot,
therefore, be rested solely on the ipse dixit of the concerned authority.
When the satisfaction of the concerned authority is questioned in a court
of law, it is incumbent on those who support the order to show that the
satisfaction is based on certain objective facts and is not the outcome of
the whim or caprice of the concerned officer…”

18. Similarly, in V.Bhushanam v. Divisional Security

Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Vijayawada 5, this

Court held that the action of the disciplinary authority in

dispensing with the departmental enquiry against petitioner

therein was totally unjustified and illegal. In the said case, a

charge was framed and thereafter without conducting enquiry, the

special provision was resorted to dismiss the employee from

service.

19. Suffice it to record that repeatedly, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court has laid down the broad parameters within which powers

under Article 311(2) (b) of the Constitution of India can be

invoked. But, it is unfortunate to note that despite such clear
5 2003 (3) ALD 150
16
PK.J
wp_32468_2023

judicial pronouncements, the disciplinary authorities continue to

exercise those powers unjustifiably, thereby depriving their

officials fair opportunity to defend themselves.

20. In the present case, as mentioned above, the allegations, on

the basis whereof services of the petitioner were summarily

terminated by way of dismissal order, are that petitioner had

sexually assaulted the complainant and threatened to book a false

case against her husband. The only reason recorded by

disciplinary authority while passing impugned order of dismissal

is that it would be impracticable to conduct enquiry against the

petitioner as the victim is not coming forward to depose against

him by virtue of the stigma she would face in society, which

appears to be frivolous. It is evident from the record that the

complainant gave her statement before the investigating officer in

Crime No.875 to 2022 on the file of P.S. Vanasthalipuram,

Rachakonda Commissionerate on 07.07.2022 whereas the

impugned dismissal order is passed on 09.07.2022. If that be so,

what prevented the complainant to appear before the Disciplinary

Authority to depose evidence when she comfortably gave

statement before investigating officer in another case, which
17
PK.J
wp_32468_2023

reasons are not forthcoming and are only best known to the

disciplinary /appellate authority.

21. For the aforementioned reasons and in view of the settled

principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

above referred judgments, this Court holds that the impugned

dismissal order is passed without assigning justifiable reasons for

dispensing with regular enquiry. Hence the same is not

sustainable under the law and therefore liable to be set aside.

22. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned

appellate order vide proceedings No.58/T3/2023, dated

28.06.2023 issued by respondent No.2, confirming the order of

dismissal of petitioner from service vide Rc.No.640/PR-06/WZ

(MZ-II)2022 RO.No.255/2022 dated 29.09.2022 passed by

respondent No.3, communicated by respondent No.4 on

17.08.2023 vide D.O.No.7835 No.L&O/B8/225/2022-23, dated

27.07.2023 are set aside. However, this order does not preclude

the respondents in taking disciplinary action in accordance with

law. In the event of respondents deciding to take further

disciplinary action, the petitioner shall be deemed to be under

suspension from service from the date of order of dismissal. If no
18
PK.J
wp_32468_2023

disciplinary action is initiated against the petitioner, he shall be

entitled to all consequential benefits. Such decision as to

initiation of disciplinary action or otherwise shall be taken within

a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition

shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

____________________________
JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

Date : 03.01.2025
YVL/sur