WP/3504/2025 of B JAGAN MOHAN RAO Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 3 February 2026

1. B JAGAN MOHAN RAO, S/O. VENKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC A.R. HEAD CONSTABLE (A.R.HC.NO.

O/O. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT.(GUNTUR DISTRICT).

...PETITIONER AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF AP, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE SOUTH COASTAL ZONE, GUNTUR RANGE, STATE OF AP, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUNTUR RURAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALNADU DISTRICT, NARASARAOPETA, PALNADU DISTRICT

...RESPONDENT(S):

::2::

This Court made the following ORDER:

1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Petitioners for the following relief: “to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents awarded the punishment of Postponement of Increment for One Year with effect on future increments and pension besides the suspension period from 21.08.2018 to 30.10.2018 vide proceedings C.No.1931/A7/OE-PR/2018/DO.No.

dated 13.12.2021 issued by the 4th respondent and consequential rejection of appeal vide C.No. 89/Appl/2021/ROO.No. 108/2023 dated 18.01.2023 issued by the 3rd respondent and consequential rejection of revision vide proceedings D.Dis.No. 1522/T4/2023 dated 24.12.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, violation of ARCS (CC and A) Rules 1991, contrary to orders of this Honble Court and violation of Principles of Natural Justice apart from violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to release the increments and treated the suspension period from 21.08.2018 to 30.10.2018 (treated as on duty) compulsory wait with all consequential benefits and pass such….”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home Department appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

3. The present writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in awarding the punishment of postponement of increment for one year with effect on future increments and pension, and in treating the suspension period from 21.08.2018 to 30.10.2018 as “not on duty”,

::3::

vide proceedings C.No.1931/A7/OE-PR/2018/D.O. No.1045/2021, dated 13.12.2021, and the consequential rejection of the appeal vide proceedings C.No.89/Appl./2021/ROO No.08/2023, dated 18.01.2023, and the rejection of the revision vide proceedings D.Dis.No.1522/T4/2023, dated 24.12.2024, despite the criminal charge on the very same allegations having been quashed by this Court in Crl.P. No.7579 of 2021, dated 01.08.2023, as highly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991.

4. The petitioner was appointed as an Armed Reserve Police Constable in the year 1992 and was subsequently promoted as A.R. Head Constable in the year 2004. While he was so serving, a criminal case was registered against him in Cr.No.293/2018 under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC, Sections 3 & 4 of the A.P. Gaming Act, and Section 20(b)(ii)(c) read with Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act, at Narasaraopeta Rural Police Station, pursuant to which he was arrested on 15.08.2018. He was placed under suspension and was later reinstated into service. Thereafter, a charge sheet was filed and the case was numbered as S.C.No.177 of 2021 on the file of the 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur. On the very same allegations, evidence, witnesses, and surrounding circumstances, the 3rd respondent issued a departmental charge memo vide proceedings C.No.1931/A7/OE-PR/2018 dated

::4::

08.03.2019. Despite the pendency of the criminal case involving identical charges and facts, departmental proceedings were initiated. The petitioner submitted his explanation seeking dropping of the disciplinary proceedings; however, without proper consideration of the same, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The enquiry was conducted in violation of Rule 20 of the APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991, and without following the prescribed procedure. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report dated 12.11.2020, holding the charges as proved, without proper appreciation of evidence, witnesses, documents, or circumstances, and without any lawful basis. Based on the said procedurally defective and legally unsustainable enquiry report, the 4th respondent imposed the major punishment of postponement of increment for one year with cumulative effect on future increments and pension, and further treated the suspension period from 21.08.2018 to 30.10.2018 as “Not on Duty”, vide proceedings C.No.1931/A7/OE-PR/2018/D.O.No.1045/2021 dated 13.12.2021. The departmental charges were identical to the criminal charges; however, ignoring the said fact, punishment was imposed during the pendency of the criminal proceedings. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal, which was dismissed by the appellate authority vide proceedings C.No.89/Appl./2021/ROO No.108/2023 dated 18.01.2023. Thereafter, this Court, by order dated 01.08.2023 in Crl.P.No.7579 of 2021, quashed the entire criminal

::5::

proceedings in S.C.No.177 of 2021 against the petitioner, holding that the continuation of such proceedings amounts to an abuse of process of Court, and observed inter alia as follows:

“Learned counsel appearing for petitioner further submits that playing cricket match is a legitimate act and that cricket is a game played by virtue of skills possessed by players and thus cricket is a game of skill. Any betting on a game of skill is no offence. Learned counsel for petitioner cited Dr.K.R.Lakshmanan V. State of Tamil Nadu, A Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India laid down the law holding that games may be of chance or of skill or of skill and chance combined. Gaming is the act or practice of gambling on a game of chance. Gambling is a payment of a price for a chance to win a prize. It is stacking on chance where chance is the controlling factor in gaming. What is prohibited by law is wagering or betting on games of chance. Wagering or betting on games of skill is no offence. On these principles of law nothing contrary was argued by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. The alleged confession of A20 contained in mediator's report dated 15.08.2018 show that on that date at that time he came there on receiving a phone call from A16. He went there and saw that Karnataka Premier League 20- 20 match was going on, then police came and arrested everybody and seized everything. It is on that material A20 is charge sheeted. The material on record does not indicate any act of betting or any act of gaming or any act of gambling on part of A20. The only material shown against him is that he was found there. He was found outside the car and it seems inside the car people were watching that cricket match and indulging in betting. Since it is undisputed that cricket is a matter of skill and any betting on cricket could not be called gambling and since allegations against A20 do not indicate either betting or collecting bets and what all there was he was found watching people Karnataka Premier league 20-20 cricket match. What was recovered from him was a mobile phone and cash which are Per Se legally permissible articles. It is in these circumstances, one should conclude that the total contents of charge sheet and its accompanying material do not indicate this petitioner committing

::6::

any offence and continuance of such proceedings is abuse of process of Court”.

5. Placing reliance on the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision before the 2nd respondent; however, the same was also rejected vide proceedings D.Dis.No.1522/T4/2023 dated 24.12.2024, without due consideration of the binding nature of the judgment of this Court and without proper and lawful examination of the material available on record. Once the criminal proceedings had been quashed, the respondent authorities ought not to have adopted a contrary stand, particularly when the identical issue had already been conclusively and authoritatively decided by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.16104 of 2013, wherein it was categorically held as follows:

“It is fairly well settled that though an acquittal is recorded in criminal proceedings, it is open for the disciplinary authority to enquire into the charges framed against an employee. But, at the same time, if the charges framed in both the criminal and disciplinary proceedings are one and the same and the evidence recorded is also same, in such an event, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that no different view can be taken by the disciplinary authority other than the view taken in criminal proceedings. In the present case on hand, from a perusal of the enquiry report and the order of the trial Court in criminal proceedings, it is clear that all the witnesses, who were examined and whose evidences were relied upon in the disciplinary proceedings, were also examined in criminal proceedings, apart from other witnesses. In that view of the matter, it can be said that the charge framed

::7::

and the evidence recorded in both the proceedings are one and the same. In fact, in criminal proceedings, the complainant gave a statement before the criminal Court that she cannot recognise the respondent. By taking into account such a finding recorded by the criminal Court and relying on the aforesaid Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal has rightly allowed the O.A., by recording findings in support thereof. In that view of the matter, as the impugned order passed by the tribunal is based on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court, which fully supports the case of the respondent herein, we do not find any merit in this writ petition, so as to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal”.

6. The aforesaid legal position has also been reiterated and followed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.15482 of 2021 (K.A. Rehaman v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others).

7. Considering the aforesaid submissions and upon a careful perusal of the observations made by this Court in the criminal proceedings in Crl.P. No.7579 of 2021, as well as the order passed by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in W.P. No.16104 of 2013, it is evident that the Revisional Authority failed to take into consideration of the binding nature of the observations and directions of this Court, including the order quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 24.12.2024, issued by the 2nd respondent,

::8::

and the matter is remanded to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration of the revision filed by the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law, after duly taking into account the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.16104 of 2013 and the order of this Court in Crl.P. No.7579 of 2021 quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, and to pass appropriate orders after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE D. RAMESH Dt:04.02.2026 klk

::9::

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH

WRIT PETITION No.3504 of 2025

Dt:04.02.2026 klk