HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH * * * *

Between:

The Superintendent of Police, Krishna District, Machilipatnam and 2 others .....PETITIONERS AND A. Sree Hari .....RESPONDENT DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 09.01.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI &

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals

3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair Yes/No copy of the Judgment?

_______________________

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J _____________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI &

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN + WRIT PETITION No. 9691 of 2006 % 09.01.2025 Between:

The Superintendent of Police, Krishna District, Machilipatnam and 2 others .....PETITIONERS AND A. Sree Hari .....RESPONDENT ! Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri G. Raju, GP for Services-I, Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Satya Sreenivasa Rao Gist :

> Head Note:

? Cases Referred:

1. (2023) 3 SCC 622 2. (1987) 4 SCC 611 3. (1983) 2 SCC 442 4. (2016) 15 SCC 511 5. (2012) 3 SCC 178

6. 2015 SCC OnLine Del 11574

7. (2020) 13 SCC 285 8. AIR 1961 SC 1506

9. (2008) 2 SCC 41

10. (2021) 11 SCC 321 11. (2014) 4 SCC 108 12. (2014) 13 SCC 166 13. (2009) 15 SCC 620 14. (2011) 10 SCC 244 15. (1995) 6 SCC 749 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI &

THE HON’BL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION No. 9691 of 2006 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)

Heard Sri G. Raju, learned Government Pleader for Services-I, for the petitioners and Sri Satya Sreenivasa Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed by the petitioners, the Superintendent of Police, Krishna District, Machilipatnam and others challenging the Order dated 21.06.2005 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (in short ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A.No.2628 of 2002. The O.A. was filed by Sri A. Srihari, Ex.PC-807, the respondent herein. The Tribunal disposed of the O.A, setting aside the Orders impugned in O.A. and remanding the matter to the petitioner authorities to take a fresh view in the matter in imposition of punishment.

I. Facts:

3. The respondent was initially appointed as police constable on

15.06.1976. After he had put in service of 24 years, an enquiry was initiated against him for his absence from duty from 22.06.1998 unauthorizedly, as misconduct under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (in short ‘the Conduct Rules’).

4. Article-I of charge reads as under:

“PC 807 A. Srihari has been working in Challapalli PS since 02.07.97.

While working he was deputed to out-post PS on at Vakkalagadda to attend duties. He absented himself from duty from 22.06.98 FN unauthorisedly without any leave or permission from Vakkalagadda out post PS and completed the period of 21 days absence by 12.07.98 AN. He was declared a deserter from 22.06.98 FN as per Order No.224 of APPM, Volume-I.

PC.807 A. Srihari by his above acts exhibited gross neglect of duty, misconduct or misbehavious which is unbecoming of a police officer thereby violated rule 3 of A.P.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964.”

5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Armed Reserve, Machilipatnam was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct oral enquiry. The enquiry was conducted and enquiry report was submitted on 01.06.2000. The Superintendent of Police vide proceedings dated 22.11.2000 dismissed the respondent from service, recording the finding that the charge was proved. The respondent had also absented unauthorizedly from duties on earlier three occasions as well. The departmental appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority on 21.03.2001 and his revision was also dismissed by the revisional authority on 18.10.2001. Challenging the aforesaid orders, the respondent filed O.A.No.2628 of 2002.

II. Judgment of Tribunal:

6. The Tribunal affirme