IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.
Talari Narayanappa - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Telangana - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 6160 of 2019
Decided On : 20-02-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of disciplinary action. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the impropriety of disciplinary action. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court's examination of procedural fairness. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. proportionality of punishment and judicial review. (Para 14) |
| 5. conclusion and reinstatement order. (Para 15 , 16) |
ORDER :
Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.
Heard Sri C. Damodar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri C. Ruthwik Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Special Government Pleader for Home (Services) on behalf of Respondents.
2. The case of petitioner is that he was selected and appointed as Police Constable in 2nd BN at Kurnool in 1983 and discharged his duties regularly and sincerely for more than 12 years. Subsequently, he was promoted as Head Constable and transferred to 10th BN, APSP, Beechpally in 1995. As things stood thus, on 02.07.2014, petitioner was posted as store NCO and in-charge of Bell of Arms at Quarter Guard of the said campus and since he was under severe mental agony and disturbed state of mind due to the death of his grandson, he took permission from Sri. NVAN Reddy, RSI, who was in duty at that time and went to his quarter and slept and thereafter, the duty officer Sri. V. Laxminarayana, RI called him over phone and as per his direction, came to quarter guard and slept there and further in the early hours at about 5:30 am in the routine course, petitioner opened Bell of Arms for verifying the intact position of Arms and Ammunition and closed the Bell of Arms. On 03.07.2014, Sri. P. Samuel John, the Assistant Commandant, 10th BN-TSSP, Beechpally gave a written report to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Itikyala Police Station stating that one SLR Magazine loaded with 20 rounds of 10th BNTSSP i.e., Government property was missed by Sri. K. Naresh Kumar, PC-802 of “C” Coy of the said unit while petitioner was performing his duties at Battalion Quarter Guard on 02.07.2014 from 17:00 hrs and at that time, number of personnel mentioned therein are in duty at Quarter Guard including petitioner and requested for necessary action.
Based on the said report, police registered Crime No. 73 of 2014 for the offence under Section 379 IPC against unknown accused. On investigation and on the information of officers i.e. V. Laxminarayana, RI and KVV Prasad, RI who are inimical towards petitioner, on 30.07.2014, petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody by the Police on the allegation that petitioner committed theft of SLR with 20 rounds of Magazine of Mr. Naresh Kumar. Further, based on the PE report dated 05.07.2014 submitted by Sri. Jaggu Naidu, Assistant Commandant, the 4th respondent initiated disciplinary action against petitioner, one Md. Nazeeruddin, HC 652, S. Radha Krishna, PC340, Chinna Ayyanna, PC 976, G. Krishna, PC 147 and K. Naresh Kumar, PC 802 of the said unit and placed them under suspension from service and petitioner was placed under suspension vide proceedings dated 05.07.2014 till conclusion of criminal and disciplinary proceedings. It is further stated that subsequently, the 4th respondent revoked suspension order in respect of other persons who were initially suspended within two months however, they did not consider his case. It is stated that police filed charge sheet against petitioner on 30.08.2014. Further, vide Order dated 10.10.2014, the 4th respondent extended suspension of petitioner for a further period of six months. The 4th respondent issued Memorandum dated 15.10.2014 along with the state of Article of charges.
Aggrieved by the suspension order, petitioner filed O.A. No. 2860 of 2015; by order dated 24.09.2015, the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal directed respondents to review suspension order and pass appropriate orders on merits for reinstatement within a period of eight weeks. Respondents initiated oral enquiry against petitioner in pursuance of Memorandum of Charges issued. Petitioner filed OA. No. 6366 of 2015 and b
S.R. Tewari vs. Union of India
Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India
The court overturned the removal of service, finding the penalty imposed was shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct, violating the principles of natural justice and the proportionality standar....
Disciplinary punishment must align with the severity of the misconduct, and excessive penalties can be subject to judicial review and modification.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of proportionality in imposing disciplinary action, the requirement for clear and specific charges in a domestic inquiry, and the sco....
The penalty imposed for negligence in duty was upheld as proportionate and justified, emphasizing the importance of discipline in a disciplined force.
The disciplinary authority is not bound to accept the inquiry officer's findings and must ensure adherence to procedural rules in conducting inquiries, even amid ongoing criminal proceedings.
The court quashed the enhanced penalty of removal from service, holding that the charges of misconduct were not proved, emphasizing reliability issues in witness testimonies.
The High Court upheld the dismissal of a constable for unauthorized absence, ruling that appropriate procedures were followed, and punishment was not disproportionate to the violations committed.
The principle of proportionality mandates that disciplinary punishment must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct, and dismissal for minor infractions may be deemed excessive.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.