THE HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.27814 of 2017

ORDER:

The petitionerwas an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) in the Fingerprint Bureau of Warangal (Rural). He was dismissed from service by the 3^rd respondent-Additional Director General of Police, vide Proceedings dated 31.07.2017. Petitioner challenges the proceedings dated 31.07.2017 as arbitrary, biased, and procedurally flawed enquiry process, and contrary to facts and law. He seeks reinstatement with full consequential benefits, by treating the suspension period as “on duty”.

2. Brief facts of the case, as per the writ affidavit, are that the petitioner joined the Indian Army in 2001 as a Craftsman in Telecommunication and Radio wing. Following his father’s demise, he requested discharge to take care of his mother, as he was the only son. The Army accepted his request and issued a “Combined Certificate of Discharge and Recommendation for Civil Employment,” which classified him as a "non-ex-serviceman" due to the insufficient length of service and voluntary discharge.

2.1 On 26.02.2009, the Andhra Pradesh State Level Police Recruitment Board issued a notification calling for applications for several posts, including that of Stipendiary Trainee Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) (Code No. 33) and Stipendiary Trainee Police Constable (Communications) (Code No. 34). The petitioner, belonging to the BC-D community and being qualified for both posts, applied under Code No. 33. As per the notification, the upper age limit was 25 years as of 01.07.2009, with a 5- year relaxation for BC candidates and an additional 3-year relaxation for individuals who had served in the Army, Navy, or Air Force. The petitioner, being 30 years and 22 days old on the cut-off date, claimed both relaxations. However, the application form lacked a specific field to indicate whether one had merely served in the armed forces for age relaxation purposes; it only provided a binary option to declare whether one was an “ex-serviceman.”

2.2 The petitioner states that he may have ticked "yes" in the ex-

serviceman column to claim age relaxation—not reservation—without any intent to mislead. Crucially, he submitted his discharge certificate that clearly identified him as a “non-ex-serviceman”. He emphasizes that he never claimed any benefit under the ex-serviceman quota, nor did he avail any exemptions reserved for such candidates during the physical tests. He underwent the entire selection process, including physical tests, five written papers (specific to both Code No. 33 and 34), a medical test, and a records verification. Upon successful completion of nine months of training, he was appointed as ASI on December 12, 2012, and served the department with distinction for over five years, earning 52 official rewards and qualifying in the AllIndia Fingerprint Experts Examination in December

2015.

2.3 The petitioner states that issues arose only when, on

07.01.2016, he was served with a Memo dated 06.11.2015, issued by the Chairman of the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board. The Memo alleged that he had availed age relaxation meant for ex-servicemen despite being declared a non-ex-serviceman and demanded an explanation. Petitioner submitted his explanation on 11.01.2016, reiterating that he had never claimed the ex-serviceman quota and had only sought age relaxation for his previous Army service, and that his transparency in submitting a “non-ex-serviceman” discharge certificate proves his bona fides.

2.4 However, the petitioner contends that before even receiving theMemo dated 06.11.2015, the Chairman had already directed the 3^rd respondent-Additional DGP to initiate a disciplinary enquiry and explore criminal proceedings through a letter dated 16.11.2015. And, in compliance of the directions of the Chairman, the 3^rd respondent addressed a letter dated 20.11.2015 to the Additional Superintendent of Police to conduct an enquiry, which reportedly concluded with a recommendation for dismissal. T