M.A. Salem vs Superintendent Of Police

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

“….to issue an order, direction, writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of Writ Mandamus declaring the action of A.P.Administrative Tribunal in dismissing the O.A.No.7288 of 1999 dated.13.07.2001 illegal, arbitrary and unjust and quash the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated.20.02.1997 and proceedings of the 2nd and 3rd respondents No.451/Appeal-40/96/HR dated 24.03.1999 and L.D.S.No.1216/T2/1999 dated.27.08.1999 and fix the pay of the petitioner by adding two increments to the petitioner’s pay and to pass such other order or orders”

Head Sri G.Ravi Mohan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.V.Rama Rao, Special Government Pleader for Home.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that while the petitioner was working as Head Constable in Special Intelligence Group, on 11/12-07-1996, the petitioner lost his 9 MM Service Pistol and the same was reported to the 1st respondent on 12. 07.1997 and also lodged a complaint with the police about the lost of pistol. Later on, the said pistol was recovered from one Yadagiri by the Karimnagar Police when he was killed in an encounter. Later on, a charge was framed against the petitioner, which reads as under:

“Sri M.a.Saleem, A.R.H.c., 405 was attached to the Special Intelligence Group of Medak District in F-Section. On 11.07.1996 he (HC 405) along with SIG, Staff (F) raided Gopulapur village along with informants Satyam Goud and Merre Yadagiri. They surrounded the house of Chetlapally Maisaiah, where the dalam members are taking shelter. But, the dalam members took heels from rear side of the house and when ARHC 405 tried to catch them, he scaled over the wall. The HC 405 made efforts for the apprehension of fled away militants but in vain and as per the instructions of Addl. Superintendent of Police (Operation) Medak, at Siddipet, he lodged a complaint at Police Station, Chinnakondur, where a theft case has been registered vide Cr.No.55/1996 under Section 379 of IPC. During the course of investigation it was revealed that the eaerly hours of 12.7.1996, the HC 405 was in deep sleep in the house of one Satyam Goud, the another informant Meru Yadagiri by stealthily removed 9 mm pistol from HC 405 and want away. Finally, it was recovered by Ramadugu Police of Peddapalli Sub-Division of Karimnagar District from the possession of yadagiri who was shot to death. Thus, exhibited gross dereliction of duty in loss of 9 mm service pistol supplied to him which resulted in violation of Rule-3 of APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964”

The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner gave detailed explanation to the charge leveled against him and the respondents without considering the facts and the circumstances of the case and without following A.P.C.S (CCA) Rules, appointed an Enquiry Officer and finally, the respondents have passed the order by awarding punishment of deferment of increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect on future increments and pension and the period of suspension with effect from 28.07.1996 to 30.09.1996 was treated as “not on duty” vide Proceedings dated.19.02.1997. Against the punishment orders, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority and the same was rejected. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed O.A.No.7288 of 1999 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal without going into the merits of the case passed the impugned order dated 13.07.2001 confirming the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 19.02.1997.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents failed to appreciate that the pistol fell down from the pouch of the petitioner in the midnight, where there was no light and while scaling the wall, immediately Yadagiri took the pistol and ran away from the scene.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was encountering with the naxals literally fighting for existence. Under those circumstances, the petitioner could not run behind Yadagiri for recovering the pistol. Therefore, the punishment imposed on the petitioner is absolutely in correct, illegal and disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that Enquiry Officer himself stepped into the shoes of the respondent-management and elicited the answers which were not presented by the Presiding Officer, therefore, the Enquiry officer acted in a biased manner in conducting enquiry. The orders passed by the Tribunal is purely on technical grounds, but failed to appreciate the circumstances in which the petitioner’s pistol fell down from his pouch.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the respondents as well as the Tribunal failed to see that the pistol fell down from the pouch during the encounter with the extremists, which can be explained only by the petitioner, but cannot be based on circumstantial evidence for coming to a conclusion.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and requested to allow the Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 13.07.2001 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.7288/1999 by confirming the proceedings No.DO/376/1997 dated 19.02.1997, as illegal, arbitrary and unjust.

On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent contended that on 13.07.1996, the Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar informed the SDPO, Siddipet on phone that Yadagiri robbed a scooterist at the gun point and on the information, Ramadugu Police spread a dragnet for his arrest and he was killed in an encounter and seized 9 mm pistol from his possession. The petitioner reported the matter at P.S.Chinnakondur only on 15.07.1996 at 19.30 Hours i.e. after four days of the incident, stating that he lost his weapon while scaling over the compound wall for nabbing the extremists on 11.07.1996. Further the petitioner failed to inform the preliminary Enquiry Officer viz., SDPO, Siddipet immediately on 12.07.1996 after he lost his service pistol, but he informed the same only on 15.07.1996, which clearly indicates his negligence by suppressing the matter for four days. Had the weapon was not recovered by the Karimnagar police, the informant-accused Yadagiri would have committed many more property offences like robberies, dacoits, extortions, etc., along with his associated at the gun point, thus the contention of the petitioner that when he was scaling the wall to catch the extremist, his pistol fell down from his pouch and the informant-Yadagiri took the same and ran way and he informed the same to the higher officers on 12.07.1996 is far from truth and baseless. He further submitted that after going through the evidence and the statements of the prosecution records, the Enquiry Officer found that the charge is proved; therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer did not follow the procedure of CCA Rules is not correct.

The learned Counsel for the respondent further submitted that the contention of the petitioner that the order of the Tribunal is purely on technical ground is not correct, since the Tribunal after considering the entire material on record dismissed the O.A.

The learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the petitioner has not lost his pistol during the encounter, but it was stealthily removed by an informant-Yadagiri while the petitioner was sleeping. The Tribunal has rightly dismissed the O.A. filed by the petitioner and the punishment imposed by the respondent No.1 is proportionate as the charge leveled against him was proved and the Tribunal rightly dismissed the O.A holding that there are no grounds to set aside the punishment imposed by the respondent.

The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that as per the APCS (CCA) Rules, there are no statutory rules showing the quantum of punishment to be imposed on the delinquencies committed by the delinquents, hence the punishment imposed on the petitioner is in appropriate in nature and prayed to dismiss the writ petition by confirming the orders passed by the Tribunal.

After having heard both sides, this court is of the considered view that the finding of the Enquiry Officer that there is dereliction of duties on the part of the petitioner, resulting in loss of 9 mm pistol entrusted to him, cannot be said to be without any evidence, more so, when it is an admitted fact that the petitioner lost his service pistol, which was later recovered from one Yadagiri, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the punishment awarded is excessive cannot be sustained.

Further, loss of pistol by the petitioner, which was taken away by one Yadagiri, would lead to serious consequences and in fact it facilitated Yadagiri in robbing a scooterist at gun point. The Tribunal rightly observed that in a judicial review, it cannot go into the quantum of punishment awarded by the competent authority unless it is shown that it is shockingly disproportionate to the lapse on the part of the employee. The Tribunal categorically held that if it is the case of the petitioner that the matter in which the charge has been framed would show that the 1st respondent has prejudged the issue, the petitioner should have raised this objection while giving his explanation to the charge or during the course of enquiry or even in the explanation given to the 1st respondent or after enquiry is completed and the petitioner has not chosen to raise the above objection during the disciplinary proceedings or even before the appellate authority. The petitioner has also not raised this issue in the affidavit filed in the O.A., but raised it during the course of arguments. If the petitioner aggrieved by the manner in which the charge was framed during the entire course of disciplinary proceedings, it cannot be said that the prejudice is caused to him because of the manner in which the charge is framed and calling for interference of the Tribunal. Until and unless the petitioner is able to show how he is prejudiced by the manner in which the charge is framed, there would not any ground to interfere with the orders passed by the 1st respondent in the disciplinary proceedings by the Tribunal in a judicial review.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.7288 of 1998 dated 13.07.2001 is confirmed and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.