SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? : Yes/No

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reports/Journals : Yes/No

3. Whether Their Lordship/Ladyship wish to see the fair copy of judgment : Yes/No

_____________________

JUSTICE K.SARATH

WRIT PETITION (TR) NO.1821 OF 2017

Dated 08.06.2026

P. Sambaiah.

...Petitioner

and

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Home Department and others.

...Respondents

Counsel for Petitioner : Sri B. Ashok

Counsel for Respondents : Sri G. Prasanth, Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I

GIST :

HEAD NOTE :

Cases referred

1. (2006) 5 SCC 88

2. (1991) 1 SCC 299

3. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3325

4. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1736

ORDER:

The instant Writ Petition (TR) is filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the respondent No.4 dated 07.12.2012 in D.O.No.2789/2012, C.No.41/PR/2009, imposing the punishment of dismissal from service against the petitioner and consequently, the appellate order dated 19.01.2013 passed by the respondent No.3 in C.No.48/APP/2012, R.O.No.50/2013 and the revisional order dated 13.03.2013 passed by the respondent No.2 vide proceedings L.Dis.No.269-1/A3/PR/2013, Z.O.O.No.54/2013 as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard Sri B.Ashok, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. Prashanth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner joined as a Police Constable in Warangal District in the year, 2000 and while he was working at Nellikudur Police Station, he was placed under suspension on 29.10.2009 on the ground that on the instructions of Md. Samdhani, Head Constable, he accompanied him and others and went to Kasna Thanda on information that one Guguloth Veeranna was cultivating ganja on 20.09.2009 and alleged that Head Constable colluded with Veeranna, accepted Rs.10,000/- for not booking a case and instructed Veeranna to give the money to the petitioner. The petitioner allegedly received Rs.9,700/-, handed it over to Head Constable and accepted Rs.1,000/- as his share.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that a charge memo was issued on 11.11.2009 vide C.No.41/PR/2009 and the petitioner submitted his explanation to the same on 22.04.2010. Subsequently, a common enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and Md.Samdhani, Head Constable and submitted enquiry report vide C.No.01/OE/SDPO/2010 dated 30.04.2010 and held the charges as proved and the petitioner submitted his explanation thereto on 15.07.2010. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 passed the impugned proceedings dated 07.12.2012 dismissing the petitioner from service and the suspension period with effect from 03.11.2009 A.N. to 16.02.2010 was treated as “NOT ON DUTY”. The appellate and revisional authorities have rejected his appeals without considering the fact that the key witnesses had turned hostile and there was no corroborating evidence of any demand or acceptance of bribe.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Enquiry Officer has given a finding that the charges against the petitioner were proved basing on the preliminary enquiry report and the said finding of the Enquiry Officer is based on mere surmises and conjectures. Basing on the said Enquiry Officer’s report, the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority have passed impugned orders and the same are liable to be set aside. The respondents, without following the procedure as per the Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. 1991 (for brevity, “the Rules, 1991”), passed impugned order. In view of the same, learned Counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to allow the Writ Petition (TR) by setting aside the impugned proceedings of the respondents.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the following Judgments: