*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO +W.P.No.18251 OF 2024 % 08-07-2025 # Bheemappa S/o.Ramappa.

…. Petitioner Vs.

$ State of Telangana and others.

…. Respondents !Counsel for the petitioner : Mr.V.Ravichardan Counsel for the respondents : Learned Government Pleader for Home

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. 2006 (5) SCC 446 2. 1972 SLR SC 355 3. AIR 1963 SC 1723 4. 2002 (1) SLJ SC 1

5. (1997) 11 Supreme Court Cases 361

6. (2020) 9 Supreme Court Cases 471 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HYDERABAD * * * *

W.P.No.18251 OF 2024 Between:

Bheemappa S/o.Ramappa.

…. Petitioner Vs.

State of Telangana and others. …. Respondents ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: .07.2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes _______________________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO W.P.No.18251 of 2024

ORDER

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief :-

“….. to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2^nd and 3^rd respondent in imposing the major penalty of “removal of service” against the petitioner and confirming the same besides treating the period of suspension from 06.01.2011 to 14.01.2013 as “Not on Duty” vide impugned D.O.No.1884/2023 (Rc.No.56/0R-I(IV)/Major/Rck/2017, dated 24.04.2023 and the connected order passed in Appeal by the 2^nd Respondent vide Proceedings No.340/T4/2023, dated 27.04.2024 though the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case on the same set of facts and evidences vide C.C.No. 5188/2018, dated 22.02.2022, as being arbitrary, erroneous, irrational, unjust, contrary to the dicta laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in catena of decisions and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits duly treating the period of suspension as on duty for all purposes….”.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows :-

(a) The petitioner, while working as an Armed Reserve Police Constable, was placed under suspension vide proceedings dated 06.01.2011 issued by the 3^rd respondent. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by the authorities as per Charge Memo dated 07.05.2011. Alleging that while he was working in A.P.TRANSCO, he misappropriated an amount of Rs.5,47,676/- by collecting from the accused consumers for power theft without remitting the same to the Government account. The petitioner has submitted a detailed written statement of defence dated 01.06.2011, inter alia, stating that he has been falsely implicated without any semblance of evidence. The incumbent requested that all further proceedings be dropped. Having not been satisfied with the said written statement of defence, the respondents have appointed an Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner. After conducting a detailed enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report stating that there is no evidence to prove that the petitioner has misappropriated the alleged amount of Rs.5,47,676/-, but there is evidence that the petitioner misappropriated an amount of Rs.33,043/-.

(b) The petitioner submits that with regard to the very same allegations as contained in the charge memo, initially, a case in Cr.No.305 of 2010 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 403, 409 and 477 (A) of IPC, and subsequently, a charge sheet was also filed against the petitioner and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.5188 of 2018 on the file of the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, wherein the petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 22.02.2022. However, without considering the s