Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
M.Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
K.Adinarayana – Petitioner
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh and ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.20781 OF 2019
Decided On : 26-04-2021
Constitution of India - Article 226 of - – Employment and Service – Misconduct – Imposition of penalty - Injury - Immediately fact was brought to notice to the higher authorities and special treatment was administered to do g Rocky - To overcome irregularity committed by them Junior Commandos appears to have approached the higher authorities and prejudiced their mind alleging that petitioner has inflated the records regarding dog feed -
Finding of the Court:
At same time it is contended that the punishment imposed against this petitioner is illegal as on higher side thereby the penalty imposed against this petitioner is liable to be set aside and placed reliance on a judgment of Apex Court reported in Union of India wherein the Court held that an enquiry is to be conducted against any person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice charge should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges - No enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. Enquiry has to be conducted fairly, objectively and not subjectively. Finding should not be perverse or unreasonable, nor same should be based on the conjectures and surmises - There is a distinction in proof and suspicion - Every act or omission on part of delinquent cannot be a misconduct - Authority must record reasons for arriving at the finding of fact in context of statute defining misconduct - Evidence adduced should not be perfunctory even if delinquent does not take or make a protest against that charges are vague that does not save enquiry from being vitiated for reason that there must be fair play in action particularly, in respect of an order involving adverse or penal consequences - Even if the principle laid down in above judgment is applied to present facts of the case - An enquiry should be conducted in strict adherence to procedure and strictly applying principles of natural justice –
Result: Petition dismissed
ORDER :
1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the impugned orders passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police-IV, APSP Battalion, Mangalagiri by proceedings No.Rc.No.10/OE/PR/2015-19, R.O.O.No.61/2019, dated 29.03.2019 and Order of the Commandant, 6th Battalion, APSP, Mangalagiri, dated 20.05.2019 and also proceedings of the Inspector General of Police, APSP Battalion, Amaravathi Rc.No.A3/06/Appeal/2019, dated 30.09.2019 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is that the petitioner was initially appointed as APSP Constable on 01.12.1979 and promoted as Head Constable in the year 1996 and further as ASI in the year 2012, since the date of appointment he has been discharging his duties with utmost devotion and dedication.
3. During his tenure, the petitioner was awarded with several awards including Seva Padak, Uttam Seva Padak, Anthrika Suraksha Seva Padak, Parakram Padak besides 28 cash awards and 34 Good Service Entries. Thus, the petitioner is discharging his duties with utmost dedication and unblemished service throughout
4. The petitioner was posted to Greyhounds in the year 1996 and continued in Greyhounds till October, 2014 i.e., for a period of two decades. While working in Greyhounds, he was kept as incharge of the dog squad from 2002 to 2014 continuously for 13 long years, at any point of time there was no complaint about the performance and his capabilities.
5. During the month of October, 2014 when the petitioner is giving intensive training to two dogs namely Ricky and Rocky, two Junior Commandos JC 2516 (K.Venkateswara Rao) and JC 5703 (K.Gopi) has manhandled dog Ricky, consequently there was neck injury and responsible for profuse bleeding of the dog and dog fell unconscious. Immediately, the fact was brought to the notice to the higher authorities and special treatment was administered to dog Rocky. To overcome the irregularity committed by them i.e., Junior Commandos appears to have approached the higher authorities and prejudiced their mind alleging that the petitioner has inflated the records regarding dog feed. At the outset it is pertinent to note that the so called allegation was made against the petitioner after a year and immediately after the injury to the dog. To avoid any action against the Junior Commandos, they successfully implicated the petitioner in the misconduct based on unfounded allegation.
6. Based on the complaints of Junior Commandos, a charge memo, dated 24.06.2015, for the issue relating to October, 2014, was issued calling upon this petitioner to submit his explanation. The enquiry officer has submitted his report on 06.07.2016 thereafter there was complete silence on the part of the authorities but for the intervention of the Judicial Forum, the present order would not have been issued at all. There was no explanation or any whisper by the authorities for sleeping over the matter on issue from July, 2016 to till March, 2019 for about 30 long months. On surrender to Parent Department from Greyhounds, he handed over the charge to his successors. The petitioner was intentionally subjected to harassment, knowing fully well that the petitioner was not at fault and it is only to harass him.
7. The authorities are directed Assistant Commandant (ASSALT) to submit a report against the petitioner. The preliminary Enquiry Officer, without proper verification of the records, has sent a report against the petitioner to appease to higher authority who already prejudiced against the petitioner. The petitioner was placed under suspension immediately on 15.05.2015 and subjected to humiliation of undergoing suspension for more than 10 months and he was reinstated into service only on 18.03.2016.
8. The petitioner has been lamented and requested the authorities that the preliminary enquiry report was motivated and without proper verification
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
