Dismissal from police service upholds under Article 311 without inquiry due to impracticality of witness testimony related to serious sexual misconduct.

ORDER :

Pulla Karthik, J.

Aggrieved by the action of respondent No.2 in passing the impugned proceedings No.604/T4/2024, dated 16.11.2024, confirming the order of dismissal of petitioner from service passed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 vide orders dated 19.06.2024 and 20.06.2024, the present Writ Petition is filed.

2) Heard Sri A.Ravinder Reddy, learned senior counsel, representing Mr. Veera Savan Chakravarthy Dara, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services (Home) for respondents.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while the petitioner was working as Sub-Inspector of Police at PS Kaleshwaram, respondent No.3 has dismissed the petitioner from service vide proceedings dated 19.06.2024 and on the very next day i.e. on 20.06.2024, respondent No.4 has passed the consequential order dismissing the petitioner from service on the allegation that a case in crime No.42/2024 dated 19.06.2024 is registered against him for the offence punishable under Sections 449 , 376 (2), 324 and 506 of Indian Penal Code at P.S. Kaleswaram, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District. Learned senior counsel has contended that the said crime is registered based on the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant with all baseless, false, incorrect and concocted allegations in order to damage his service in the Department and reputation in the Society. Learned senior counsel has contended that even without issuing any charge memo or causing any enquiry under Telangana State Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (in short ‘CCA Rules’), respondents 3 and 4 have straight away issued the impugned orders dismissing the petitioner from service on untenable ground that gullible women victim might not come forward to depose evidence against the petitioner in the alleged sexual offences, which ground is neither genuine nor relevant for respondent No.3 to exercise the power under Rule 25 (ii) of CCA Rules. Further, respondents 3 and 4 have referred to crime No.42 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under , 376 (2) (a) (b), 324 and 506 of Indian Penal Code in the impugned dismissal orders, however, the petitioner has nothing to do with the said crime. Further, aggrieved by the dismissal order, dated 19.06.2024, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before respondent No.2. But, without considering the grounds of appeal and without conducting any enquiry, the appellate authority has rejected the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 16.11.2024, which is illegal, arbitrary and violative of CCA Rules besides violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 311 of Constitution of India. Further, respondent No.2 has not assigned any reasons while dismissing the appeal, which is non est in the eye of law and is in violation of principles of natural justice. Further, respondent No.2 has failed to note that the power under Rule 25 (ii) of the CCA Rules read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India is an exception where a normal procedure of giving a reasonable opportunity to an employee in disciplinary inquiry is not reasonably possible for reasons to be recorded of his satisfaction to that effect. But, in the instant case, absolutely no factual foundation to dispense with the inquiry and the reasons given therefor are not relevant and not germane to exercise the said power. Learned senior counsel has further contended that respondent No.3 is not the appointing authority in case of the petitioner. As such, the dismissal order passed by respondent No.3 is ultra vires. Further, the suspension order dated 19.06.2024 as well as the reasons given for dispensing with the inquiry are contrary to the facts within the knowledge of respondent N