Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
The Union Of India vs Y.Venkateswarlu, on 9 May, 2025
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
APHC010043102021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3526]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT APPEAL No. 56 of 2021
Between:
The Union Of India and Others ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
Y Venkateswarlu ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. J U M V PRASAD (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. K GANI REDDY
The Court made the following:
2
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao)
Writ Petition No.25105 of 2013 is filed to declare the proceedings
Force Order No.43/2013 No.X/P.227/153/2/2010 dated 22.02.2013 of
the respondent No.2 in imposing punishment of reduction of rank from
Assistant Sub-Inspector and in confirming the same by the respondent
No.1, vide Force Order No.121/2013 (X/P.227/153/Appeal/ YV/2013)
dated 30.07.2013, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and
21 of the Constitution of India and consequently prayed to direct the
respondents to extend all the benefits to the petitioner in the rank of
Assistant Sub Inspector along with his juniors including seniority, pay
fixation, promotion and arrears of salary.
2. Brief facts of the Writ Petition are that the writ petitioner, by name,
Y.Venkateswarlu, RPF Head Constable, Office of Inspector TE
Company, Vijayawada Division, who was initially appointed as RPF
Constable on 18.11.1979 and subsequently promoted as Naik in the
year 1984 and further promoted as Head Constable in the year 1992.
The writ petitioner-respondent herein was subjected to the disciplinary
proceedings for bribe taking from innocent hawkers. Accordingly, the
respondent No.2 imposed punishment of reduction of rank from
Assistant Sub-Inspector in pay band Rs.5200-Rs.20200 + GP Rs.2,800/-
(Rs.4,200/- MACP) to the rank of Head Constable in the pay band of
Rs.5200-Rs.20200 + GP Rs.2,400/- for a period of three years with
3
cumulative effect having effect on his future increments and
seniority, vide proceedings dated 22.02.2013 and appeal was filed
before the Appellate Authority, in parallel also filed a Writ Petition, vide
W.P.No.25105 of 2013 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra
Pradesh. The Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal, vide order
dated 30.07.2013, confirming the orders of respondent No.2.
3. Nonetheless, the order challenged in the Writ Petition dated
22.02.2013, was contested on the grounds that Rule 248.1 of the RPF
Rules, 1987, outlines a specific procedure for initiating disciplinary
proceedings when a complaint is received from the public or through a
Court where civil or criminal action has been initiated against a member
of the Force, in the present case that it does not attract the provisions of
Rule 248.1 of the RPF Rules, 1987, and, inter alia, it is contended that
the inquiry must be conducted by an officer of a rank higher than the
Assistant Security Commissioner; however, in this instance, the inquiry
was carried out by an officer below the rank of Assistant Security
Commissioner. Additionally, it was pointed out that Sri Bhogiya Naik, an
Inspector at the Gooty Post, served as the Inquiry Officer despite facing
a major punishment charge sheet. It was suggested that he conducted
the inquiry in a cursory manner to curry favour with respondent No. 2; he
conducted the enquiry in a perfunctory manner. Hence, prayed to set
4
aside the impugned order dated 22.02.2013, which was confirmed by the
Appellate Authority, vide proceedings dated 30.07.2013.
4. The aforementioned Writ Petition was resolved by the learned
Single Judge of this Court vide an order dated 26.02.2020, based on the
finding that a preliminary inquiry was conducted against the petitioner
who is working as Sub-Inspector, by the Assistant Commissioner.
Subsequently, an inquiry was carried out by an officer of Inspector rank,
which was contrary to the established Rules. According to Rule 248(1) of
the RPF Rules, if the delinquent is a Sub-Inspector, the inquiry officer
must hold a rank higher than that of Assistant Commandant placing a
reliance on a judgment of the former High Court of Andhra Pradesh in
W.P.No.23494 of 2004, and granted liberty to the respondents therein to
initiate action against the writ petitioner in accordance with the RPF
Rules.
5. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge of the common High Court
has allowed the Writ Petition No.25105 of 2013 vide order dated
26.02.2020, has annulled the impugned Force Order No. 43/2013 No.
X/P.227/153/2/2010 dated 22.02.2013 that had imposed punishment
against the petitioner and permitted the respondents to conduct a fresh
inquiry in accordance with the RPF Rules. In arriving such finding, the
learned single Judge has placed reliance on the order of the former High
5
Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No. 23494 of 2004, finding comparable
circumstances.
6. The aforementioned order was challenged in the current Writ
Appeal by the respondent authorities, arguing that the inquiry was
conducted by an Inspector who holds a rank superior to that of the writ
petitioner-respondent, currently serving as ASIPF, in accordance with
Rule 153.2.1 of the RPF Rules, 1987, and the Rule No.248.1 is not
applicable to the writ petitioner’s case. Furthermore, it was stated that
the order in W.P.No.23404 of 2004, dated 22.12.2004, was challenged
through an intra-Court appeal (W.A.No.873 of 2005). A Division Bench
of the common High Court had modified the single Judge’s order. The
Bench emphasised that if this principle were upheld, every inquiry would
need to be conducted by an Enquiry Officer of equal rank to the
Preliminary Enquiry Officer, which in this case would be the Assistant
Security Commissioner. Consequently, the single Judge’s order was
modified or altered. Therefore, the respondent authorities urged that the
Writ Appeal be allowed by dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the writ
petitioner-respondent.
7. The learned arguing counsel Sri Sitaram Chaparla representing
the writ petitioner has not disputed the arguments made by the writ
appellants. The counsel for the writ petitioner has acknowledged that the
officer who conducted the preliminary inquiry is indeed competent.
6
However, it is contend that this officer is currently facing a major
punishment charge and conducted the inquiry to gain favour from the
respondent No. 2. Despite submitting representations to the authorities,
the authorities have not been taken into account. Therefore, it was urged
that the intra-Court appeal be dismissed on these grounds.
8. When this Court directly asked the learned counsel representing
the writ petitioner-respondent about the prejudice suffered by the writ
petitioner due to the inquiry conducted by an officer facing serious
disciplinary charges, he would reiterate the same fact and stated that in-
order to obtain favourable orders from the respondent No.2, he
conducted the enquiry in perfunctory manner without giving any
reasonable opportunity to the writ petitioner to present his case.
9. Upon reviewing the inquiry report, it is clear that the writ petitioner
was afforded significant opportunities to present his case. The petitioner
has not been able to demonstrate or establish any prejudice resulting
from the inquiry being conducted by an officer facing charges. It is a
settled law that the burden lies upon the delinquent to demonstrate that
the enquiry was not conducted in proper manner and it is conducted in
violation of the principles of natural justice. As seen from the enquiry
report, that it indicates that an ample opportunity was given to the writ
petitioner and there is no breach of principles of natural justice.
7
10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in United Commercial Bank and others
Vs. P.C.Kakkar Chairman and Managing Director and others 1, after
referring several authorities, held in paragraph Nos.11 and 12 as follows:
“11. The common thread running through in all these
decisions is that the court should not interfere with the
administrator’s decision unless it was illogical or suffers from
procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of
the court, in the sense that it was a defiance of logic or moral
standards. In view of what has been stated in the
Wednesbury’s case (supra) the court would not go into the
correctness of choice made by the administrator open to him
and the court should not substitute its decision to that of the
administration. The scope of judicial review is limited to the
deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision.
12. To put differently unless the punishment imposed by
the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the
conscience of the Court / Tribunal, there is no scope for
interference. Further to certain litigations it may, in
exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment
by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In a normal
course, if the punishment imposed is shockingly
disproportionate it would be appropriate to direct the
disciplinary authority, to the appellate authority to reconsider
the penalty imposed.”
1
2003 LLR 436 (SC)
8
11. As seen from the contentions raised in the affidavit filed in support
of the Writ Petition, except statement made that the Enquiry Officer who
was appointed to conduct enquiry against the writ petitioner is
facing charges, there are no allegations suggesting that the officer
conducted the inquiry in a biased or malicious manner, or that it violated
the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the Enquiry Officer was not
named as a party in a personal capacity.
12. An inquiry is not rendered invalid solely because it is conducted by
an officer facing charges, unless specific bias against that officer can be
demonstrated. Since the writ petitioner failed to provide evidence of bias
or prejudice from the Inquiry Officer during the proceedings, this does
not constitute valid grounds to dismiss the disciplinary action against the
accused. The order from the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 23494 of
2004, dated 26.02.2020, was modified in the intra-Court appeal (W.A.
No. 873 of 2005), which determined that an officer of a higher rank than
the delinquent can conduct a preliminary inquiry. As established by
numerous judgments from the Supreme Court, the writ Court does not
function as an Appellate Authority over the decisions of the authorities,
regardless of how erroneous they may be, unless there is a clear
violation of justice principles, bias in the inquiry process, or not
considering the evidence in proper manner. The writ petitioner has not
argued that the inquiry was conducted in a biased manner.
9
13. The order referred by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.23494
of 2004, dated 26.02.2020, is no longer valid as it has been modified in
W.A. No.873 of 2005 . Therefore, the petitioner cannot rely on the order
from W.P.No.23494 of 2004. Consequently, we are inclined to grant the
relief in this Writ Appeal by reversing the order dated 26.02.2020 issued
by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.25105 of 2013, and the order
impugned it is hereby set aside.
14. Nevertheless, this Court believes that the punishment imposed on
the writ petitioner is disproportionate to the charges. Therefore, we allow
the writ petitioner to submit a representation to the relevant authority
within two weeks on receiving this order. Upon receiving the
representation, the jurisdictional authority is directed to review it in
accordance with law and regulations and to reconsider the punishment,
changing it from ‘with cumulative effect’ to ‘without cumulative effect and
communicate the decision to the writ petitioner within a period of 3
months from the date of representation.
15. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. However, no costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this case
shall stand closed.
__________________________
JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
__________________________________
JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
Date: 09.05.2025
siva
10
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT APPEAL No. 56 OF 2021
Date: 09.05.2025
siva
[ad_1]
Source link