2002 Supreme(AP) 1080

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.SUDERSHAN REDDY
Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City - Appellant
Versus
N.Gopal - Respondent
Decided On : 09-11-02

Headnote:

Criminal Law - Criminal Trail – Evidence – Indian Penal Code,1860 - Writ Petitions – Section 384 - Learned counsel for writ petitioners, however, relied upon a learned single Judge s judgment of this Court in wherein this Court took view that "when petitioner-delinquent was acquitted by judicial pronouncement holding that he is not guilty of charge, it would be unjust and unfair to allow findings recorded in departmental proceedings to stand" - With respect to learned Judge, principle enunciated in said judgment is not in tune with binding precedents including one of M. Paul Anthony (2 supra), upon which learned Judge placed reliance in reaching to such conclusion - Said judgment is contrary to judgments of Division Bench of this court referred to hereinabove and pronouncements of Supreme Court and same is accordingly overruled - Be that as it may, second charge framed against writ petitioners is not as one framed against them in criminal case - Charge in disciplinary proceedings is to effect writ petitioners have exhibited reprehensible conduct and misuse of official power in threatening complainant and extorting a gold chain and a Titan wrist watch and getting themselves involved in Crime under Section 384 of the Indian penal Code of Saifabad Police Station - Charge essentially relates to misuse of official power in threatening complainant and extorting a gold chain and a Titan watch - It is true that latter part of accusation is same as one made against writ petitioners in criminal case - But it is not exactly same - Writ petitioners submitted their explanation denying allegations contained in Charge Memo - It is their case that they were falsely implicated in matter - It is also pleaded by them in their explanation that on similar allegations made against them in Charge memo, a complaint was lodged with saifabad Police Station and same has been registered as a case in Crime under Section 384 of Indian penal Code - In circumstances, writ petitioners expressed their inability to file a detailed explanation as same could possibly be used against them in criminal Court adversely and prejudicially affecting their interest in criminal proceedings - Writ petitioners accordingly requested authority to defer enquiry in disciplinary proceedings until conclusion of criminal proceedings – Held, Court are required to appreciate that disciplinary authority passed orders imposing punishment of compulsory retirement on basis that both charges were held to be proved against writ petitioners - Punishment awarded to writ petitioners is attributable to cumulative effect of both charges held proved against them - It cannot be said that disciplinary authority would have imposed same punishment of compulsory retirement as against writ petitioners on basis of first charge alone being proved against them - First charge relates to un authorised absence of writ petitioners - It is true that jurisdiction of Tribunal and this Court to interfere with quantum of punishment is limited - Tribunal as well as this Court cannot interfere with quantum of punishment imposed upon delinquent officer unless it is held that punishment imposed is so irrational as to shocks one s conscience and that no reasonable man while reasonably exercising his power would impose same - Tribunal having interfered with view taken by disciplinary authority on charge No. 2 which is serious and grave in its nature set aside punishment of compulsory retirement awarded, but left it open to disciplinary authority to impose appropriate punishment, since charge No. l is held to be proved as against writ petitioners - Tribunal itself did not award any punishment - Tribunal remitted matter for fresh consideration by disciplinary authority for awarding appropriate punishment - It cannot be said that Tribunal itself had interfered with quantum of punishment and substituted its own view for that of disciplinary authority – Court do not find Tribunal to have committed any error whatsoever requiring our interference in matter - Disciplinary authority shall take an appropriate decision in matter in accordance with law in terms of directions of Tribunal as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order - Court do not find any merit in both writ petitions - Writ Petitions Dismissed.