E. Srinivasulu vs State Of Telangana And 7 Others

In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the proceedings of respondent No.1 dated 09.06.2022, confirming the order of the respondent No.2 in proceedings dated 02.02.2022 and confirming the proceedings of the respondent No.2 imposing the penalty of removal from service and treating the suspension period i.e., from 05.08.2019 to 26.10.2020 as not on duty, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently to set aside the same and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.

Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Police Constable in Nalgonda District and that consequent to merger of some Police Stations of combined Nalgonda District in Rachakonda Police Commissionerate, due to reorganization of districts in the year 2016, he was posted in Yadagirigutta Police Station and continued in the said Police Station. While the petitioner was performing the duties as Section Incharge ASI-774, on 05.08.2019 a complaint was given by respondent No.7, who was working as a sweeper under GMR services at Yadagirigutta Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, that the writ petitioner forced her to fulfill his indecent desire by showing her porn videos and also asking her to come to a lodge with him. On the basis of the said complaint, an oral enquiry was directed and the enquiry was conducted by the respondent No.6 and on the basis of the inquiry report, the petitioner was placed under suspension and the petitioner was also required to give his written statement of defence. The petitioner submitted his written statement and subsequently, the suspension order was recalled, but, the departmental enquiry was continued against the petitioner and respondent No.2 imposed the punishment of ‘removal from service’ vide proceedings D.O.No.1171/2021, Rc.No.203/42/PR-I/Major/ RCK/2019, dated 20.05.2021. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before DGP, but the same was rejected and against the same, the petitioner preferred further appeal to the Government and the Government also rejected the same and therefore, the present writ petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the submissions made in the writ affidavit, submitted that the allegations in the complaint made by the respondent No.7 are false and fabricated. It is submitted that an oral enquiry as well as subsequent departmental enquiry go to prove that the allegations of the defacto complainant that the petitioner was not marking her attendance and that he had asked the respondent No.7 to go to a lodge with him and was forcing her to watch porn videos in order to make her subjugate to his illegal desire, is without any basis and incorrect. It is submitted that the complainant herself in her evidence stated that the petitioner never called her to any lodge and that he did not force her to watch any porn videos. It is further submitted that though CCTV cameras were in place and were operational during the relevant period of time, neither the officer who conducted the enquiry, nor the disciplinary authority have looked into the same to find out the veracity of the complaint and therefore, the enquiry was vitiated and the punishment order of ‘removal from service’ should be set aside.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the statements of various officers including that of the victim in support of his contentions.

Learned Special Government Pleader for Home, however, relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and also supported the impugned order. It is submitted that PW2, who is the Incharge of GMR services staff, had confirmed in his statement that the victim had complained to him about indecent behavior of the petitioner herein. It is submitted that for the reasons best known to her, she has turned hostile during the course of departmental proceedings. It is submitted that since the statement of the victim was corroborated by the statement of PW2, the punishment imposed of ‘removal from service’ is justified. As regards the non-verification of CCTV cameras is concerned, it is submitted that since the victim had complained after a period of five months and that specific date and time was not given, it was not possible to verify the CCTV cameras and therefore, the same was not done.

Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the victim had made the following allegations against the petitioner:

(i) the petitioner forced her to watch porn videos on his mobile phone;

(ii) the petitioner had not marked her attendance for a period of two months and forced her to meet his illegal demands;

(iii) the petitioner had called the victim to a lodge.

During the course of inquiry, the allegations No.(ii) & (iii) have been found to be false. Even with regard to the first allegation, this Court finds that the complaint was given after five months of the alleged incident and the victim herself has turned hostile and has denied that the petitioner had ever shown porn videos to her. The reasons for turning hostile are not known. Though the victim’s statement was corroborated by the statement of PW2, who was the Incharge of GMR services, during the course of her chief examination, the victim herself has turned hostile and the allegations are not substantiated with any evidence to the contrary. Only on the basis of statement of PW2, the disciplinary authority seems to have come to the conclusion that the charge of indecent behavior against the petitioner has been proved. It is true that the allegations of sexual harassment at work place is not easy to be proved, but when there are CCTV cameras, which are operational in the Police Station and when the petitioner himself has put a suggestion that the same would be recorded in CCTV cameras which were operational, the authorities could have verified the same i.e., of the month in which the alleged incident happened. But, since the respondents failed to verify and substantiate the allegations and the victim herself has viled away from her complaint, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents ought not to have held the charges as proved and imposed the punishment of ‘removal from service’.

In view of the same, the order of ‘removal from service’ dated 20.05.2021, which has subsequently been confirmed by orders dated 02.02.2022 and 09.06.2022 are set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with consequential benefits. However, petitioner shall not be eligible for backwages for the entire period of removal from service till the date of this order and he shall be entitled to 50% of the backwages and the period from the date of removal to till the date of reinstatement, shall be considered as service only for the purposes of pension and pensionary benefits.

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.