Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1099
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J.
G. Ram Reddy S/o Veera Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 23920 of 2017
Decided On : 12-09-2025
For the Appellant : A. Tirupathi Goud
The court found the imposed punishment was excessive compared to the proven misconduct and mandated modification to ensure just treatment, emphasizing fairness in disciplinary proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 - Rule 3 - Suspension and disciplinary action - Petitioners suspended for misconduct in allowing under trial prisoners to escape - Inquiry conducted and punishment imposed - The court found that misconduct was proven but the punishment imposed was excessive given no previous disciplinary charges occurred during their service. (Paras 9, 10, 12, 13)
(B) Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India - Violation alleged - Petitioners challenged the validity of imposed punishment citing improper examination of responses during the inquiry. (Paras 6, 12)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, Armed Assistant Sub-Inspectors, were suspended for negligence allowing prisoners to escape, and faced disciplinary action. They argued lack of tools to prevent escape justified their actions.
Findings of Court:
The court adjudged the inquiry was just but modified the punishment to no cumulative effect on increments or pension due to excessive nature in relation to past conduct.
Issues: Whether the punishment was excessive and justified, given conduct and lack of past misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi: Punishment deemed excessive compared to misconduct severity, promoting fairness in disciplinary actions following a lengthy service.
Result: Writ Petition partly allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the case details and initial actions taken against the petitioners. (Para 2 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. misconduct and suspension of petitioners outlined. (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments presented by petitioners and respondents regarding the actions taken. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. court's observations on the evidence and adherence to due process. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. court's rationale regarding punishment modification. (Para 11 , 12) |
ORDER :
1. The instant writ petition is filed to grant the following relief:
“ .. to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the impugned C.No.43/A6-1/OE/2008, D.O.No.1133/2010, dated 24.05.2010 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda and the orders passed in appeal in R.O.No.47/2016, Rc.No.123/D1-2/HR/2017, dated 27.01.2017 issued by the 3rd respondent, communicated to the petitioners in C.No.43/A6/1/Appeal-10-11/2010-16, D.O.No.252/2017 dated 08.02.2017 by the 1st respondent, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently, release the increment withheld from the petitioners with all consequential benefits including treating the suspension period as on duty.”
2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioners, who are Armed Assistant Sub-Inspectors, were placed under suspension by the 1st respondent vide proceedings dated 01.08.2008 for neglecting duty and misconduct in letting off Under Trial Prisoners viz., Shaik Nagur Vali and Shaik Hussain on 01.08.2008 in the limits of Chityal Police Station, while escorting them from Central Jail, Rajahmundri to Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Ramannapet and later, giving a false complaint at Chityal P.S. and thereby exhibiting lack of integrity and conduct unbecoming of a Government servant in violation of Rule 3 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (for short ‘Rules, 1964’). Subsequently, a charge was framed against the petitioners on 03.10.2008 and petitioners have filed reply to the said charge memo and consequently, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Bhongir was appointed as Inquiry Officer to conduct inquiry and by following due procedure, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, vide his Minutes in C.No.4/OE/SDPO-B/2008, dated 27.03.2010 holding that the charge against the petitioners was proved, which is a gross negligence and violation of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1964 and the 1st respondent by enclosing a copy of the report of Inquiry Officer, issued Memo No.43/A6-1/OE/2008, dated 08.04.2010 directing the petitioners to submit their explanations thereon.
3. The petitioners submitted their explanations stating that they were not provided with weapons and a proper vehicle, and as a result, despite exercising due diligence, they were unable to prevent the escape of the under trial prisoners and requested to exonerate them from the charges by dropping the disciplinary proceedings initiated against them. The 1st respondent, after perusing the enquiry report and the explanation offered by the petitioners, has imposed punishment of PPI for two years with effect on future increments and pension, for the misconduct and the suspension period from 03.08.2008 to 19.02.2009 is directed to be treated as ‘not on duty’.
4. Subsequently, petitioners have challenged the orders passed by the 1st respondent vide C.No.43/A6-1/OE/2008, D.O.No.1133/2010 dated 24.05.2010 in an appeal before the 4th respondent herein vide R.O.No.47/2016 (Rc.No.123/D1-2/ HR/2017) dated 27.01.2017 and the 4th respondent having perused the inquiry report and also the orders passed by the 1st respondent after following due procedure has confirmed the orders passed by the 1st respondent and challenging the said orders passed by the 1st respondent as confirmed in the appeal by the 4th respondent, petitioners filed the instant writ petition.
5. Heard Mr. A. Tirupathi Goud, learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the learned Government Pleader for Ser
