THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.23486 of 2024

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondents in continuing the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, pursuant to Memorandum P.R.No.51/2016/No.L&O/BS/Tr/1736/2-13-16, dated 09.06.2016 and Memorandum No.HCP/NZ/HNI/OE/621/ 2021, dated 19.08.2024, issued by respondent Nos.3 and

5, respectively.

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

(a) The petitioner was initially appointed as Reserve-Sub Inspector of Police in S.A.R.C.P.L. vide proceedings dated 29.08.1991 issued by the Special Inspector General of Police, APSP Battalions, A.P., Hyderabad and thereafter promoted as Reserve Inspector vide proceedings dated 19.10.2015 issued by the 2^nd respondent and working as such till date. While so, the 3^rd respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and issued Charge Memo dated 09.06.2016 alleging that the petitioner contracted multiple marriages and got involved in criminal cases in connection with the said marriages and that while availing L.T.C. he had shown the name of one Smt.M.Renuka as his wife and at the time of submitting pension papers, he has nominated one Smt.Sumalatha as his wife. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.42696 of 2016, and this Court granted an interim order. Later, the petitioner, believing that the respondents would drop the proceedings initiated against him, withdrew the said writ petition on 26.04.2021. Regarding two other charge memos, the writ petitions were withdrawn, and in those cases, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner were dropped.

(b) The petitioner’s grievance in the present writ petition is that the disciplinary proceedings should not be continued on the same set of facts, since he has been acquitted in the criminal cases. A Statement of imputations of misconduct does not accompany the aforementioned charge memo, and the list of witnesses does not contain the names of witnesses, i.e., Mrs.Ganga Manoher, Smt.Jalaja Srinivasulu, Smt.Padmaja and Smt.Sumalatha respectively. Once the criminal cases are ended in acquittal, continuing the disciplinary proceedings on the very same set of facts would amount to double jeopardy.

(c) The petitioner was previously subjected to disciplinary/criminal proceedings based on a complaint filed by his former wife, Smt.Ganga Manohari and thereafter, he was removed from service vide proceedings dated 28.02.2001 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, APSP, Hyderabad. However, the said proceedings were set aside by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1638 of 2001 dated 23.07.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated into service vide proceedings dated 21.08.2001. Regarding the same allegations, the petitioner was tried for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 420, 494, and 307 of the IPC. The petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC, but acquitted in respect of the other offences, as per the judgment, dated 14.02.2003. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred Crl.A.No.259 of 2002, and this Court vide judgment dated 12.04.2006 set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the court below. Subsequently, upon the directions issued by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 26.06.2007, the petitioner was reinstated into service vide proceedings dated 01.05.2007 issued by the 5^th respondent.

(d) After being dismissed from service in 2001, the petitioner got divorced from his wife, Smt.Ganga Manohari @ Renuka vide O.P.No.298 of 2002 dated 10.08.2002. Regarding the allegation concerning the petitioner’s marriage and involvement in a criminal case, the issue is covered by the earlier orders of the Tribunal and this Court in the criminal case. Therefore, it is not open to the authorities to reopen the case after a lapse of more than 15 years from the date of the alleged incident and after nine years from the date of reinstatement into