THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

ORDER:

The Writ Petition is filed having been aggrieved by the action of respondent No.3 in denying the past service vide impugned order dated 12.01.2005, while modifying the punishment imposed upon the petitioner by respondent No.2 vide proceedings dated 07.09.2004.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as a Railway Police Force (RPF) Constable on 19.04.1995, and while working as such, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 05.10.2002, on the grounds that he was involved in a criminal case vide Crime No.392 of 2002, registered for the offense punishable under Section 306 IPC, and that he failed to inform his superiors about his surrender at Kushaiguda Police Station on 04.10.2002. A Charge Sheet dated 25.10.2002 was issued framing five charges against the petitioner. Subsequently, Mr. T. Murali Krishna, Inspector, RPF, Kazipet, was initially appointed as an enquiry officer, who was replaced with Mr. B. Narayana Reddy, Inspector, RPF, vide proceedings dated 07.07.2003, after the petitioner’s transfer to Guntur Division. While so, on the very same set of allegations, a Charge Sheet was filed on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, which was later committed to the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, which was numbered as S.C.No.50 of 2003. Further, after the conduct of the departmental enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report to respondent No.1 on 12.06.2004, holding the changes leveled against the petitioner as proved. Thereafter, based on the said enquiry report, respondent No.2 had straightaway passed the order dated 07.09.2004, removing the petitioner from service. It is further case of the petitioner that after conduct of a trial in the criminal case in S.C.No.50 of 2003, he was acquitted of the charges vide judgment dated 15.10.2004. Therefore, the petitioner preferred an appeal against his removal order before respondent No.3 on 18.11.2004, duly enclosing a copy of the judgment in criminal case. On consideration of the same, respondent No.3 has passed the present impugned order dated 12.01.2005, reinstating the petitioner as a fresh entrant for all purposes, in terms of Rule 275 of the Railway Police Force Rules, 1987, (for short, ‘the RPF Rules, 1987’). Challenging the said order to the extent of denial of counting the past service with all consequential benefits, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Heard Sri J.M. Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. K. Manideepika, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents have straightaway appointed the enquiry officer without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation to the charge sheet, thereby, violating the principles of natural justice. Thereafter, the enquiry officer also conducted his enquiry in a perfunctory manner, holding the charges against the petitioner as proved. It is also contended that the petitioner was never issued with a show-cause notice nor an opportunity was afforded to him, before imposing the punishment of removal from service. It is further contended that punishment, as modified by respondent No.3, vide impugned order dated 12.01.2005, is highly disproportionate to the charges, more particularly, since the petitioner was honourably acquitted in the criminal case. Therefore, respondent No.3, while granting re-enlistment, ought not to have denied the past service of the petitioner along with the consequential benefits, as the same would have an adverse impact on the livelihood and reputation of the petitioner. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prays this Court to pass necessary orders in the present writ petition.

5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents vehemently contends that the contention of t