Back
2020 Supreme(Telangana) 798
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, T. AMARNATH GOUD, JJ.
G. Sudhakar Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana and Others – Respondents
I.A. Nos. 2 of 2019, 1 of 2020 in W.P. No. 2 of 2019
Decided On : 21-04-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Gandra Mohan Rao.
For the Respondents: S. Sharat Kumar, P. Govind Reddy.
Acquittal in a criminal case has a bearing on departmental proceedings based on the same set of facts, and the disciplinary authority must consider the acquittal before imposing a penalty.
Headnote:
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - CRIMINAL CASE - ACQUITTAL - PENSION - CUT IN PENSION - SERVICE RULES - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - DELAY IN INITIATING AND COMPLETING DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - PERVERSE FINDINGS - NO APPLICATION OF MIND - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - REINSTATEMENT - PROMOTION - PENSIONARY DUES - INTEREST - COSTS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a Civil Sub-Inspector, was placed under suspension in 1997 and reinstated in 1998. He was again suspended in 1998 and reinstated in 2002. In 2004, he was accused of forging signatures of his superior officers in his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the period of suspension. A criminal case was registered against him, and he was acquitted in 2012. A departmental enquiry was also initiated against him, and he was found guilty of the charges. The State Government imposed a penalty of 5% cut in pension for 2 years. The petitioner challenged the order in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the disciplinary proceedings were based on the same set of facts as the criminal case, and that the acquittal in the criminal case had a bearing on the departmental proceedings. The Court found that the findings of the enquiry officer were perverse and that the State Government had not applied its mind to the matter before imposing the penalty. The Court also held that the delay in initiating and completing the disciplinary proceedings had prejudiced the petitioner. The Court set aside the order imposing the penalty and directed the State Government to reinstate the petitioner with full pension and other benefits.
Issues: 1. Whether the acquittal in the criminal case had a bearing on the departmental proceedings? 2. Whether the findings of the enquiry officer were perverse? 3. Whether the State Government had applied its mind to the matter before imposing the penalty? 4. Whether the delay in initiating and completing the disciplinary proceedings had prejudiced the petitioner?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The acquittal in the criminal case had a bearing on the departmental proceedings, as both were based on the same set of facts. The acquittal in the criminal case indicated that the charges against the petitioner were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 2. The findings of the enquiry officer were perverse, as no reasonable person could have come to the conclusion that the petitioner had forged the signatures of his superior officers in his ACRs for the period of suspension. 3. The State Government had not applied its mind to the matter before imposing the penalty, as the impugned order did not contain any reasons for the decision. 4. The delay in initiating and completing the disciplinary proceedings had prejudiced the petitioner, as it had caused him mental agony and financial hardship.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order imposing the penalty, and directed the State Government to reinstate the petitioner with full pension and other benefits. The Court also directed the State Government to pay the petitioner arrears of pension and other benefits with interest at 9% per annum from the date of his retirement till the date of payment, and to pay him costs of Rs. 50,000/-.
ORDER :
1. The petitioner was directly recruited as Civil Sub-Inspector in 1974 and was promoted as Inspector of Police on 24.9.1983. He retired on 30.9.2009 on attaining the age of superannuation.
The background facts:
2. On 18.11.1997, petitioner was placed under suspension pending a disciplinary enquiry after he was involved in an ACB trap case.
3. On 18.4.1998, petitioner's suspension was revoked and he was reinstated into service. On 6.8.1998, he was again suspended on the same allegations. On 1.6.2002, the suspension was again revoked and he was reinstated into service. His case was referred to the Tribunal for Disciplinary proceedings. On 29.8.2002, the said Tribunal fully exonerated him from the charges. On 2.9.2004, the then State of A.P. disagreed with the Tribunal's proceedings and dismissed him from service.
4. Petitioner approached the A.P. Administrative Tribunal against the said action and the Tribunal on 5.11.2005 reinstated the petitioner into service and directed that the entire period of suspension till dismissal would be counted for purpose of seniority. Accordingly G.O.Rt. No. 102 dated 21.1.2006 was issued by the then State Government of A.P.
5. The petitioner was again suspended on 3.4.2007 from service on charge that he forged signatures of his superior officers in his ACRs for the period of suspension and got them inserted in his personal file in First week of February, 2003 in the Office of the DIG, Hyderabad.
6. The present Writ Petition relates to this event only and not to the prior events.
7. It is contended by the respondents that petitioner was placed under suspension from 6.8.1998 to 27.6.2002 on 4.4.2003, the Joint Commissioner of Police (Administration), Hyderabad city mentioned in the personal docket sheet of the petitioner that from 31.3.1998 to 31.3.2002, petitioner's Annual Confidential Repots (ACRs) were not available as he was under suspension; that he was posted in the APSRTC Vigilance wing as Inspector of Police. The Chief Office called for nominal roll, defaulter sheet and personal files of Inspectors of Police fit to act as DSP for the year 2003-04 from all the range officers of the State; coming to know of preparation of this list, the petitioner, in first week of February 2004 had handed over the ACRs to one P. Narasimha, Camp Clerk to DIG, Hyderabad by forging the signatures of officers i.e. reporting, reviewing and accepting authorities as genuine for the years ending with 31.3.1999, 31.3.2000, 31.3.2001 and 31.3.2002; that the said P. Narasimha filed the said ACRs in petitioner's personal file and sent to the Chief Office along with other personal files; after scrutiny, the personal files were returned for rectification of irregularities by mentioning in the remarks column against the petitioner that the ACRs were not available as per the docket sheet from 31.3.1999 to 31.3.2003 the Chief Office asked the Deputy Inspector General for thorough probe and report by enclosing copy of anonymous petition against the petitioner; that accordingly enquiry was conducted recommending to prosecute petitioner besides disciplinary action.
8. Cr. No. 2/2005 under Section 468, 471 IPC was registered against him in the CID, PS and he was arrested on 29.3.2007.
9. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by issuing a charge memo to him on 22.12.2009 stating that he exhibited lack of integrity and conduct by forging signatures of his superiors, prepared ACRS for his suspension period and was involved in the above Cr. No. 2/2005.
10. Later a Charge sheet was filed in the Criminal Court in C.C. No. 782 of 2007 before the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad but petitioner was acquitted on 22.11.2012.
11. In the meantime, the petitioner retired from service on 30.9.2009 even prior to issuance of charge memo in the disciplinary proceedings and no pension or other benefits have be
