IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION (Tr.) No.5705 OF 2017 THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE Between:

K.Venkataiah …Petitioner AND The Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda-508001 and three others.

…Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition (TR) is filed seeking the following relief: “…to call for the records relating to and in connection with the Impugned Proceedings in C.No.13/A6-1/OE/13-14(4080) DO.No.154/2015 dated 16.01.2015 of the 1^st respondent and consequential Proceedings R.O.No.282/2015 RC.No.298/D1- 10/HR/2015 dated 16.04.2015 of the 2nd respondent and Proceedings R.O.No.222/2015 RC.No.94/PR/West Zone/2015 dated 30.07.2015 of the 3^rd respondent and quash or set-aside the same by declaring them as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent to drop the punishment against the applicant and grant all consequential service and monetary benefits to the applicant and to pass such other order or orders…”

2. Heard Sri A. Tirupathi Goud, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services (Home), appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was placed under suspension vide proceedings dated 31.07.2013 while working as constable at A.R Headquarters, Nalgonda, alleging misconduct on the part of the petitioner apart from stating that he was found in an intoxicated condition and a preliminary enquiry was conducted by recording the statements of four witnesses and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. Subsequently, an article of charge dated 05.09.2013 was issued against the petitioner for which the petitioner has submitted his written statement on 08.10.2013, denying the charges in toto. However, without considering the said explanation in proper perspective, respondent No.1 appointed an enquiry officer vide proceedings dated 15.10.2013 and a full-fledged enquiry was conducted. Thereafter, the enquiry officer submitted his report vide proceedings dated 26.09.2014 holding the charge levelled against the petitioner as “not proved”. Despite the same, respondent No.1 issued dissent note on 11.12.2014 disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer and sought further explanation from the petitioner. In response, the petitioner submitted his final representation on 27.12.2014 requesting to drop the further action by exonerating him from the alleged charge which was held not proved during the enquiry. However, without considering the above aspects, respondent No.1 issued the impugned proceedings dated

16.01.2015 awarding with an impugned punishment of “PPI for one year with effect on future increments and pension and his suspension period from 21.08.2013 to 23.09.2013 is treated as “Not on duty”. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an Appeal before respondent No.2 on 13.02.2015 which was erroneously rejected vide proceedings dated 16.04.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner also preferred Revision before respondent No.2 which was also rejected vide proceedings dated 30.07.2015.

4. It is further submitted that both respondent Nos.2 and 3 have failed to consider the explanation of the petitioner and mechanically issued the impugned orders, despite the charge being held as “Not proved”, solely basing on the preliminary enquiry report which is clearly illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust and subversive of articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, learned counsel seeks indulgence of this Court to set aside the impugned orders of rejection passed in Appeal and Revision dated 13.02.2015 and 30.07.2015 respectively.

5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Services (Home) appearing for respondents submits that the petitioner was initially placed under suspension vide proceedings dated 31.07.2013 for gross derelict