HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 44905 OF 2017

O R D E R:

The case of petitioner is that he was appointed as Police Constable on 31.10.1995. While serving, he was implicated in four criminal cases, namely Crime No. 111 of 1999 of PS Hasanparthy under Section 392 IPC and Section 25(1-a) of Arms Act, Crime No. 140 of 1997 of PS Matwada, Crime No. 96 of 1995 of PS Kazipet and Crime No. 76 of 1997 of PS Mamnoor. Without holding any enquiry, the 2^nd Respondent dismissed him from service by proceedings dated 19.04.2000. It is stated, Petitioner was acquitted in all the cases on merits. After his acquittal, Petitioner submitted a representation to the 2nd Respondent seeking reinstatement. As no action was taken, he approached the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 6448 of 2009. By order dated 09.02.2012, the Tribunal set aside the dismissal order dated 19.04.2000 holding it to be ex parte and without cogent reasons for dispensing with enquiry and directed respondents to reinstate Petitioner with all consequential benefits except back wages from the date of dismissal till filing of the O.A., while reserving liberty to initiate fresh disciplinary action.

1.1. When the order was not implemented, Petitioner filed Contempt Application No. 926 of 2013 in O.A. No. 6448 of 2009. After service of summons, the 2^nd Respondent issued reinstatement order vide D.O. No. 71 of 2014 dated 16.01.2014, and accordingly, Petitioner rejoined duty on 19.01.2014. However, within three weeks, he was again placed under suspension by D.O. No. 220/2014/C.No.201/PR/1999-14 dated 10.02.2014, on the ground that his continuation in service was likely to influence contemplated departmental proceedings. Petitioner challenged the suspension in O.A. No. 3738 of 2014. The Tribunal by order dated 17.06.2014, suspended the suspension order dated 10.02.2014 and directed reinstatement, but the respondents did not reinstate him.

1.2. Subsequently, an Article of Charge was served alleging that Petitioner had earlier been dismissed for involvement in Crime Nos. 111 of 1999, 140 of 1997, 96 of 1995 and 76 of 1997, and that his continuation in service was likely to prejudice departmental proceedings, thereby violating APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. He submitted Written Statement of Defence on 10.07.2014. Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry and submitted report on 20.10.2014. The 2^nd Respondent called for further explanation by memo dated 04.10.2014 for which, Petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 01.11.2014.

Without considering the defence or acquittal judgments, the 2nd Respondent again dismissed him from service vide order dated 12.11.2014. Aggrieved thereby, Petitioner preferred a statutory Appeal on 19.11.2014 before the DIG of Police, Warangal Range which was rejected on 06.02.2015; thereafter, Revision Petition which was also rejected by order dated 06.08.2015 holding that recovery of gold chain, scooter (AP 36C 1876) and knife in Crime No. 111 of 1999 casts stigma on his character, ignoring his acquittal in C.C. No. 1096 of 1999 by judgment dated

31.07.2002.

1.3. According to Petitioner, once acquitted on merits in all criminal cases, departmental proceedings on the same charges are unsustainable. A delinquent cannot be punished departmentally when acquitted in criminal trial on merits and on identical charges. The impugned dismissal order dated 12.11.2014, appeal rejection dated 06.02.2015 and revision rejection dated 06.08.2015 are contrary to the binding precedents and are illegal and arbitrary. It is further contended that Petitioner had already undergone extreme hardship, having been kept out of service for 14 years between 19.04.2000 and 16.01.2014, despite his acquittal. Respondents, instead of complying with Tribunal orders, again subjected him to harassment through suspension and fresh dismissal on the same grounds, which amounts to double jeopardy, disproportionate punishment and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of