Disciplinary actions must adhere to principles of natural justice, including the right to cross-examine witnesses, or they risk being deemed invalid.

JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer :

".... to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the order of respondent No.2 Bearing Rc.No.A3/PR/81/SPF/2011-19, OO No.A-65/2019, dated 30.04.2019 confirming the order of respondent No.3 Bearing Rc.No.As/PR/81/SPF/2011-16, dated 03.06.2016 as being without jurisdiction, illegal and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits thereon, and pass such other order or orders."

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows :

(a) Previously, the petitioner used to work as a Constable in the Boarder Security Force from the year 1988 and while working as such, he was appointed as a Constable in A.P.S.P.F. in the year 1993. Subsequently, he was promoted as Head Constable in the year 1999.

(b) In view of the matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and his wife, while the petitioner was working as Head Constable in APSPF at Srisailam Dam, she lodged a complaint against the petitioner on the ground of harassment for additional dowry, and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.34 of 2011, dated 21.07.2011 on the file of Mahila Police Station, Anantapur for the offence under Sections 4 98-A and 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner was arrested in the said crime and was enlarged on bail. In view of the said criminal case, the petitioner was suspended from the service on 15.09.2011.

(c) It is stated that the suspension of an employee on the ground that he has been facing a criminal case on the complaint of his wife for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, is not sustainable. While the case was in the Criminal Court, Departmental enquiry was initiated by respondent No.3 appointing the Assistant Commandant, APSPF, SDSTPS, Nellore as the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter a charge-memo was issued to the petitioner on 07.06.2012 initiating a disciplinary action against the petitioner for the self-same charges as that of the charges in the criminal case.

(d) Questioning the allegations in the Departmental Enquiry, the petitioner had filed OA No.5784/2012 before the Tribunal and the learned Tribunal held that the respondents had no power to initiate the departmental enquiry for the allegations under Section 498-A IPC as the said charge has no nexus with the official duties of the petitioner.

(e) Despite the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner was given punishment of compulsory retirement from service by the order of respondent No.3 in Rc.No.As/PR/81/SPF/2011-16, dated 03.06.2016. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to respondent No.2, who confirmed the order of respondent No.3 by the impugned order in Rc.No.A3/PR/81/SPF/2011-2019, OO No.A-65/2019, dated 30.04.2019.

(f) The respondents have no jurisdiction to initiate departmental enquiry into an allegation which has nothing to do with the official duties of the petitioner in the department. When this objection was taken by filing a case before the Tribunal, the enquiry was stayed and later the case was allowed. However, the respondents continued the enquiry. The Departmental Authority has no jurisdiction to conduct departmental enquiry into the charge and impose punishment thereon.

(g) Despite being acquitted of the charge by the Appellate Court setting aside the orders of conviction of the Trial Court, respondent No.2 based on the judgment of the Trial Court, confirmed the punishment