WP/24137/2004 of Natha Alphane Rao, P.C. No. 808, Vs The Principal Secretary to Govt., on 30 December 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. BIKSHAPATHY

and

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA

WRIT PETITION NO : 24137 of 2004

Between:

Natha Alphane Rao, P.C. No. 808, L.&O Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada,R.H.No. 2-1-8-3/2, Kotinagar, Krishna Lanka, Vijayawada.

..... PETITIONER

AND

1 The Principal Secretary to Govt., Department of Home, Govt of A.P.,Secretariat, Hydeabad.

2 The Director General and Inspector of General of Police, A.P., Hyderabad.

3 The Commissioner of Police, Sakthi Bhavan, Vijayawada.

.....RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying thatin the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Courtwill be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly awrit in the nature of certiorari by calling for the records leading up tothe passing the impugned order of the Hon'ble Andhra PradeshAdministrative/Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No. 3055/2002 dt.07.09.2004 and quash the same against the orders of the 3rdrespondent commissioner of Police, Vijayawada in his Proc.C.No.48/PR/98, dt. 06.10.1999 as confirmed by the 2nd respondent in

L.Dis.Rc.No.265/T2/2000, dt. 07.03.2000 as confirmed by the 1strespondent in his proc. No. 43/53/Pol.B/A2/2000-1, dt. 20.12.2000and set aside the same declaring as illegal, arbitrary andunconstitutional and pass such other order or further orders in theinterest of justice.

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.Y.SUBRAHMANYAM

Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR HOME

The Court made the following :

ORDER:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Bikshapathy)

The Writ Petition is filed assailing the order passed by the A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.NO.3055/2002 dated 7-9-2004.

2. The petitioner was working as a Police Constable. While so acharge sheet was issued to him alleging that he attempted to rape awoman by name Kasinaboina Lakshmi at Seethanagaram,Vijayawada while on beat duty on the night of 20/21-2-1997. Anenquiry was conducted against the petitioner and ultimately he washeld guilty of the charge. The 3[rd] respondent/competent authority bythe proceedings dated 6-10-1999 in C.No.48/PR/98 imposedpunishment of deferment of one increment with cumulative effect andalso treated the period of absence of the petitioner as not on duty.Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an Appeal before the 2[nd] respondent and by the proceedings in L.Dis.Rc.No.265/T2/2000,dated 7-3-2000 the 2[nd] respondent confirmed the order of the 3[rd]respondent. The petitioner also filed a Revision Petition before the 1[st]respondent against the order of the 2[nd] respondent but the 1[st]respondent in Proc.No.43/53/Pol.B/A2/2000-1 dated 20-12-2000rejected the same. Therefore the petitioner filed O.A. before the A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The Tribunal refused to interferewith the order of the 3[rd] respondent on the ground that the proceduralrequirements have been complied with and dismissed the O.A. byorder dated 7-9-2004 and aggrieved by the same the petitioner filedpresent Writ Petition.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was nolegal evidence to sustain the charge of attempting to commit rapeframed against the petitioner and erroneously the charge was heldproved against him in the Departmental enquiry and therefore theTribunal ought to have considered the same and set-aside the orderof the 3[rd] respondent dated 6-10-1999.

4. We are afraid, we cannot accept the said contention of the learnedCounsel representing the petitioner. The Tribunal after consideringthe matter held that there was no infirmity in the Departmental enquiryand that the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal proceedings isnot a bar to proceed with the Departmental action. As can be seen from the record also, this is a case where the charge levelled against

the petitioner was held to be proved in the Departmental enquiry. Inour considered view, the punishment imposed also is quite justifiable.Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the orderpassed by the Tribunal dated 7-9-2004.

5. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage.No order as to costs.

_________________________

JUSTICE G.BIKSHAPATHY

_________________________

JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA

Date : 30-12-2004

AM

1 The Principal Secretary to Govt., Department of Home, Govt of A.P.,Secretariat, Hydeabad.

2 The Director General and Inspector of General of Police, A.P., Hyderabad.

3 The Commissioner of Police, Sakthi Bhavan, Vijayawada.

4. 2 C.Cs. to Government Pleader for Home, High Court Buildings, High Court of A.P.

Hyderabad (OUT).

5. The Registrar, A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad.

6. 2 C.Ds.