Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/11826/2023 of G. Rangaswamy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 31 March 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 11826/2023 Between: 1. G. RANGASWAMY,, S/O LATE Y. RANGANNA, AGED 39 YEARS, R/O A.GOLLAPALLI
APHC010225202023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO: 11826/2023
Between:
1. G. RANGASWAMY,, S/O LATE Y. RANGANNA, AGED 39 YEARS, R/O
A.GOLLAPALLI
VILLAGE,
SETTURU
MANDAL,
ANANTHAPURAMU, ANDHRA PRADESH, POLICE CONSTABLE, HINDUPUR UPGRADE P.S. ( P.C.NO.2432)
2. D.S.MARUTHI PRASAD,, S/O A. LAKSHMAIAH, AGED 43 YEARS, R/O D.NO.6/117, KADIRI ROAD, NEAR T.V.TOWER, LENIN NAGAR, ANANTAPUR
DISTRICT,
POLICE
CONSTABLE,
GOOTY
P.S.(P.C.NO.1150)
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP' BY IT'S PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. GUNTUR DISTRICT
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT.
3. THE
INSPECTOR
OF
POLICE,
ITIKALAPALLI
CIRCLE,
ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in issuing
proceedings vide D.No.171/2022 dated 05.03.2022 against the petitioners imposing a punishment of Postponement of Increment for two years with effect on future increments and pension and the period of suspension and subsequent action of the respondents 2 and 3 in proposing to impose further punishment as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Principles of Natural Justice, provisions of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control, Appeal Rules) 1991, besides being voilative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and to set aside the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 05.03.2022 and declare that the Petitioners are entitled for all consequential benefits including treating the period of suspension as on duty and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings pursuant the proceedings vide D.No.171/2022 dated 05.03.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Memorandum of Charge dated 03.06.2019 and 05.06.2019 issued to the petitioners and inquiry report dated 23.11.2021 issued by the respondents 2 and 3 and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 08.05.2023 in W.P.No.11826 of 2023 and dismiss the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. N ASWARTHA NARAYANA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES I
The Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
WRIT PETITION No.11826 OF 2023
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The writ petition is filed assailing the orders of the 2nd respondent dated 05.03.2022, imposing punishment of postponement of increments for two years with effect on future increments and pension and the period of suspension, as the same is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice and provisions of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control, Appeal Rules) 1991.
2. Heard Sri N.Aswatha Narayana, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as against the very same incident, initially a crime has been registered against the petitioners and the same was numbered as Calendar Case No.260 of 2019 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur. The said case was disposed of acquitting the petitioners. While the said proceedings were pending, disciplinary proceedings were also initiated. The charges in the disciplinary proceedings as well as the charges in the criminal case are one and the same and witnesses are also same. In the said circumstances, the criminal case is ended in acquittal. However, the respondents, who had earlier dropped the departmental proceedings, surprisingly, without conducting any proper inquiry, issued the impugned proceedings imposing a major penalty of stoppage of two increments. Such action of the respondents is contrary to the judgment of the Division Bench in Ch.China Galaiah v. The Inspector General of Police, Guntur Range, Guntur1, wherein, it was disposed of with the following observations: “…22. The very basis and foundation for initiating departmental proceedings against the Writ petitioner being the registration of crime and the criminal prosecution conducted thereafter. Admittedly, after holding full-fledged trial, the Court of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, acquitted the writ petitioner cleanly and honourably, but not by extending the benefit of doubt. The impugned action of authorities in holding the enquiry into the criminal offences alleged against the petitioner, in the teeth of judgment of Sessions Court, would tantamount to interference with the judicial process, which cannot be permitted. The exercise undertaken by the disciplinary authorities is highly reprehensible, objectionable and the same is liable to be deprecated. The involvement in crime may be one of the factum while considering the candidature at the time of initiation of disciplinary proceedings, but it cannot be a ground for inflicting punishment. It is also pertinent to note that Article No.2 of the enquiry is an integral part of Article No. 1. Perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal did not consider the above aspects while arriving at the conclusions. The orders passed by the disciplinary authority, inflicting the punishment of dismissal in the teeth of the Judgment rendered by the Sessions Court suffer from inherent lack of jurisdiction…”
4. Learned counsel further submits that even in the instant writ petition, the respondents have conducted disciplinary proceedings after conclusion of the criminal proceedings, despite the petitioners having been honourably acquitted. The said action is contrary to the law laid down by the Division Bench in the supra referred judgment.
5. In reply to the said submissions, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that as petitioners are working in a uniformed service, they are required to maintain some discipline.
1 W.P.No.21578 of 2013 dated 14.09.2023
In the instant case, the charges against the petitioners relate to the alleged extortion of certain amounts from third parties, and accordingly, charges were framed. The Inspector of Police, Itikalapalli Circle, was appointed as the Inquiry Officer, and after conducting a detailed inquiry, the charges were found to be proved based on the findings in the inquiry report. Consequently, the petitioners were imposed with the impugned punishment in accordance with the Rules.
6. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed the following interim orders on 08.05.2023.
“…Considering the submissions made, there shall be an interim direction to the respondents not to impose any 2nd punishment other than the punishment which was already imposed by the 2nd respondent on 05.03.2022…”
7. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to go into merits of the case. Confirming the said interim orders, liberty is granted to the petitioners to file an appeal within a period of two weeks before the DIG, Anantapur Region, and if any such appeal is filed, the appellate authority may consider the findings of the trial Court along with the findings of the inquiry report and also the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in the above referred judgment, and pass appropriate orders, if required, by providing an opportunity of hearing to petitioners, and dispose of the same. It is needless to mention that if the currency of the punishment is completed in accordance with the Rules, their cases may also be considered for promotion.
8. With the above observations, the present Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH
Date: 01.04.2026 KBN
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
WRIT PETITION No.11826 of 2023
Date: 01.04.2026
KBN