APHC010086012023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3208]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 4361/2023 Between:

A Seshagiri Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. K SRINIVASA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES I WRIT PETITION NO: 4368/2023 Between:

Yemineni Gopiraju ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. K SRINIVASA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES I The C ourt made the following:

COMMON ORDER:

1. Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, both the writ petitions are disposed of by way of this common order. 2. Both the writ petitions are filed challenging the impugned proceedings C.No.12/A5/OE/PR/2018, D.O.No.584/2022, dated 05.09.2022, issued by the 4^th respondent awarding the punishment of removal from service and the consequential orders issued by the 3^rd respondent dated 14.12.2022 rejecting the appeal petition as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violative of Articles 14, 16 and

21 of the Constitution of India.

3. The petitioners in both the writ petitions were appointed as Police Constables on 18.01.20212 vide a common proceedings. On 28.11.2014, both the petitioners were placed under suspension and subsequently charges were framed against the petitioners in both the matters and a Crime in C.C.No.50 of 2015 under Section 384 read with 34 IPC in Crime No.862 of 2014 of Nallapadu P.S was registered on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur. While pending the criminal case, the respondents have also initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners and issued charge memo on 31.12.2015. The Additional Superintendent of Police, Guntur Urban was appointed as Enquiry Officer and he has conducted the enquiry and submitted the report on 30.01.2016 with the following finding:

“On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the case before me and the acquittal of main case in Cr.No.862/2014 u/s 384 IPC r/w IPC by the Hon‟ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur vide C.C.No.50 of 2015, dated 15.06.2015 as A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s 384 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted as per the provisions of Section 24891) of Cr.P.C in view of the reasons given above, I hold the following charges against the charged officer as „not proved‟.

4. Even before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur the petitioners were acquitted in C.C.No.50 of 2015 vide judgment dated 15.07.2015 with following observations:

“Therefore, for all the above reasons, court finds that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 384 r/w 34 IPC.”

5. Despite the above findings in the enquiry report the disciplinary authority has passed the orders on 05.09.2022 disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer and removed the petitioners from their service and the suspension period from 20.11.2014 to 19.06.2015 treating as not on duty.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the 3^rd respondent and the same has been considered and rejected vide orders dated 14.12.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petitions are filed.

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions is that once the Criminal court has considered and acquitted the petitioners, the respondents ought not to have proceeded with the disciplinary proceedings. The respondent authorities should have finalized the disciplinary proceedings while considering the findings of the criminal courts as the charges are one and the same and the witnesses are also one and the same. The enqu