SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(AP) 152

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J.
N. Shankar Prasad - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. - Respondent
W.P. No. 8782 of 2019
Decided On : 01-10-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Seshagiri Rao Yalamanchili

Headnote:

Employees Conduct Rules Act, 1963 – Section 304 – Section 338 Constitution of India – Article 226 – Writ Petition filed by petitioner to set aside order initiating departmental enquiry against petitioner and appointing Deputy Superintendent of Police, as enquiry officer, without conclusion of trial in criminal case initiated against petitioner on same set of facts, petitioner appointed as Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police, Since then he has working without any blemish to utmost satisfaction of authorities concerned –Held, Since employee petitioner herein is seeking order of staying departmental enquiry till conclusion of criminal trial, he cannot in future take advantage of delay in departmental enquiry which are now being stayed on his request and make any complaint or express any grievance on ground of delay in completing departmental enquiry, it is appropriate to note that Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in case of Sri Balai Kumar Sanfui ordered that departmental enquiry is to stayed only for one year with hope that criminal prosecution would completed by then, as crime in this case registered and charge-sheet also filed, Court is also hopeful that criminal trial of accused will completed within year – Writ Petition is disposed of. (Para 23, 24)

Facts of the case:

Writ Petition filed by petitioner to set aside order initiating departmental enquiry against petitioner and appointing Deputy Superintendent of Police, as enquiry officer, without conclusion of trial in criminal case initiated against petitioner on same set of facts, petitioner appointed as Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police, Since then he has working without any blemish to utmost satisfaction of authorities concerned.

Findings of the court:

Since employee petitioner herein is seeking order of staying departmental enquiry till conclusion of criminal trial, he cannot in future take advantage of delay in departmental enquiry which are now being stayed on his request and make any complaint or express any grievance on ground of delay in completing departmental enquiry, it is appropriate to note that Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in case of Sri Balai Kumar Sanfui ordered that departmental enquiry is to stayed only for one year with hope that criminal prosecution would completed by then, as crime in this case registered and charge-sheet also filed, Court is also hopeful that criminal trial of accused will completed within year.

Result: Writ Petition is disposed of.

ORDER :

CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J.

1. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner to set aside the order dated 06.06.2019 of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eluru Range, West Godavari District, initiating departmental enquiry against the petitioner and appointing the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CCS, Kakinada, East Godavari District, as enquiry officer, without conclusion of trial in the criminal case initiated against the petitioner on the same set of facts.

2. Shorn of irrelevant details, facts germane to dispose of this Writ Petition may briefly be stated as follows:

The petitioner was appointed as a Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 2007. Since then he has been working without any blemish to the utmost satisfaction of the authorities concerned.

3. While he was working as Sergeant Traffic-I Police Station, Kakinada, East Godavari District, he was involved in a criminal case in Crime No. 244 of 2016 registered on 17.12.2016 by Indrapalem Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 201, 203, 213, 217, 218, 221 of IPC and Section 69(A) of the Income Tax Act r/w. Section 34 of IPC. It is "alleged in the said criminal case that the petitioner along with his staff involved in corrupt practices by conducting an illegal raid without the knowledge of the concerned authorities of law and order or any other superior officer and seized a bag containing Rs. 25.00 Lakhs from A-1 to A-4 therein during the course of illegal transfer of money during the period of demonetisation of currency notes and in collusion with A-1 to A-3 he has let them off and only arrested A-4, who is the clerk of A-1 and A-2, and thereafter, handed over only cash of Rs. 18.00 Lakhs out of the seized amount of Rs. 25.00 Lakhs to concerned police who registered the crime and thereby committed the aforesaid offences. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was also filed before the Court of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, East Godavari District, and the same is now pending trial before the trial Court.

4. The 2nd respondent placed the petitioner under suspension as per proceedings dated 20.12.2016 and thereafter his suspension was revoked on 09.04.2017 and at present he is working as Reserve Sub-Inspector, District Armed Reserve, Kakinada, East Godavari District.

5. The 2nd respondent also issued a charge memo dated 30.11.2018 to the petitioner which was served on him on 08.02.2019. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and others and ordered for departmental enquiry against him and appointed the 3rd respondent as enquiry officer by his order dated 06.06.2019. The imputations of charge against the petitioner in the said departmental enquiry are that the petitioner colluded with A-1 to A-3 who indulged in exchange of black money i.e. the demonetised notes with the new currency notes for wrongful gain and thereby violated Article 3(1)(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, furnished false information with regard to the offence committed by the offenders connected with Crime No. 244 of 2016 of Indrapalem Police Station, with an intention to save the offenders, who are A-1 to A-3 therein, from punishment and unlawfully suppressed the facts. The petitioner did not handover the actual cash seized by him along with his factual report to the Station House Officer, Indrapalem Police Station and he facilitated the offenders to escape from the offence and thereby tarnished the image of the police in public view.

6. The petitioner has submitted his written statement and requested the disciplinary authority to keep the departmental proceedings pending till the criminal case registered against him on the same set of facts is disposed of on the ground that if the departmental enquiry is conducted during the pendency of the said criminal case that it would affect his defence in crimin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top