AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner while serving as Controller at the APSRTC Srikalahasti depot, was placed under suspension on 15-5-1996 pending departmental enquiry, on the following charge:
"For having involved in a criminal case of alleged killing on 25-2-1996 which has resulted in framing criminal case against you as Crime No.30 of 1996 u/s 302 IPC by Muthyala Reddy Palli police station which amounts misconduct u/s 28(xxxi) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Regulations, 1963."
Simultaneously the petitioner was prosecuted for the alleged offence u/s 302 IPC in SC No.1 of 1997 in the Court of the IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Tirupathi. After due trial, the petitioner was acquitted by the judgment and order of the learned IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Tirupathi dated 8-8-1997, and the said judgment and order have become final.
In the meanwhile, departmental enquiry against the petitioner was also conducted and the disciplinary authority, namely, the Depot Manager, Srikalahasti by his proceedings dated 28-11-1996 removed the petitioner from service as a disciplinary measure. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order of the disciplinary authority preferred appeal to the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, APSRTC Tirupathi. The appeal was also dismissed by the appellate authority on 10-3-1997. The petitioner preferred review petition to the Regional Manager, APSRTC Tirupathi. At this stage, it is relevant to note that by that time the petitioner was acquitted by the Criminal Law Court as noted above, and therefore the petitioner after obtaining a copy of the judgment delivered in SC I of 1997 submitted the same to the revisional authority requesting the latter to exonerate him from the charge on the ground that the competent Criminal Law Court had acquitted him honourably on merits. The Regional Manager by the impugned proceeding dated 17-1-1998 dismissed the review. Hence this writ petition assailing the validity of the disciplinary proceedings culminating in the order of the Regional Manager, APSRTC Tirupathi dated 17-1-1998.
Sri P.S. Narayana, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the only ground stated by the Regional Manager in the impugned order to dismiss the review petition that the petitioner admitted the fact of his involvement in the murder of his wife is factually incorrect, and the records of the disciplinary proceedings would not support that finding. Secondly, Sri P.S. Narayana would contend that since the petitioner was acquitted honourably on merits by the competent Criminal Law Court, he should be deemed to be a totally innocent of the charge levelled against him by the disciplinary authority, and consequently he is entitled to be exonerated from the charge. On the other hand, Sri A. V. Sivayya, the learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC, placing reliance on the evidence of the petitioner recorded by the Enquiry Officer on 9-10-1996, would maintain that the petitioner admitted his guilt of having murdered his wife in the course of departmental enquiry, and therefore the finding recorded by the Regional Manager-Reviewing authority is justified. I have perused the impugned order passed by the Regional Manager, Tirupathi. The Regional Manager has referred to the judgment passed in SC 1 of 1997 dated 8-8-1997 and has pointed out that in the said judgment it was stated that due to miserable failure on the part of the prosecution to bring home guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt the accused is not found guilty of the offence u/s 302 IPC and hence he was acquitted. That observation of the Reviewing authority shows that he was not prepared to exonerate the petitioner from the charge levelled against him in the departmental enquiry only on the ground of the petitioner''s acquittal in SC No.1 of 1997. Having stated thus, the Regional Manager has pointed out in the order that during the departmental enquiry the petitioner admitted the fact of his involvement in the murder of his wife. It is relevant to note that all the three authorities under the APSRTC CCA Regulations found the petitioner guilty of the charge solely on the ground of the alleged admission made by the petitioner in the course of departmental enquiry about his involvement in the murder of his wife. Therefore, the only question that arises for consideration is whether such an admission is made by the petitioner in the course of departmental enquiry. Dealing with the admission of misconduct by the delinquent in the departmental enquiry, this Court in K. Venkateswarlu v. Nagarjuna Grameena Bank and another 1995 (1) ALD 500, has held that in a disciplinary proceeding if the delinquent admits the charge framed against him or makes an unconditional or unqualified confession; then there is nothing more to be done by way of enquiry, and it cannot be argued that the procedure of departmental enquiry should have been applied notwithstanding such admission or confession. Since the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation placed reliance on the statement of the petitioner recorded by the enquiry officer dated 9-10-1996 to contend that the petitioner has admitted commission of murder of his wife, it is appropriate to note the evidence of the petitioner. It reads:
` "On 25-5-1996 when I went to my residence, I found Sri A. Arumugam, Reserved Constable is at my residence. I have been the illegal contact between my wife and the said constable. I got annoyed came down to quarrel with the constable. When I tried to beat the said constable with a wooden log he escaped the same and the blow taken place on the head of my wife and sustained severe bleeding head injury. On seeing this the Reserved Constable left the spot hurriedly. To inform the same facts I had been to the East Police Station, Tirupathi where I was informed that my residence was not located in the jurisdiction of East Police Station and they advised me to report the matter to Muthyala Reddy Palli police station around 11.00 a.m. Immediately the police authorities taken me into custody duly not heeding my version and kept me inside the Police Station. The Police Officials even not allowed any media persons to talk to me. After that they registered a case against me as 1 have done the crime and referred the matter to III Addl. Session Judge of Tirupathi. Then I was sent to Judicial Custody on 26-2-1996 and kept under remand in Tirupathi sub-jail upto 25-3-1996.
Further I am to state that I was under sick from 31-1-1996 to 28-2-1996 due to my ill-health and to that extent I was also submitted valid sick certificates to the depot authorities. As this is pertains to my personal life and also 1 have not involved in killing my wife, I have no way connected with this case. Hence I am denying the charge."
From this statement it can not be said that the petitioner delinquent admitted the killing of his wife on 25-5-1996. On the other hand, the petitioner in specific terms had denied the charge and asserted that he was not involved in killing of his wife. I should say that all the three authorities including the Regional Manager, misread the evidence of the petitioner given in the course of departmental enquiry to conclude that the petitioner admitted his guilt of having murdered his wife. But for the so-called admission, the proceedings of the three authorities of the APSRTC have no other ground to bring home the charge against the petitioner. Therefore, it should be held that the Disciplinary authority lias utterly failed to prove the charge against the petitioner and accordingly I hold. In view of this finding, I do not find it necessary to consider the other contention of Sri P.S. Narayana that since the Criminal Law Court acquitted the petitioner after due trial, the petitioner-delinquent is entitled to be exonerated from the charge levelled against him in the departmental enquiry.
Before concluding, reference be made to a startling defence taken by the APSRTC in the counter filed by it. In the counter, apart from asserting that the disciplinary measure is grounded on the admission of the delinquent himself, they have also putforth the contention for supporting the disciplinary measure on the ground that though the petitioner was arrested and was in police custody for more than one month, he did not report about his arrest to the immediate superior under Regulation 26 of the APSRTC Employees, (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. This contention has to be noticed only to be rejected. It is needless to state that unless a specific charge in that regard was framed against the delinquent and departmental enquiry was held on the said charge against the delinquent, question of punishing the delinquent on such ground would never arise. Admittedly, no charge was framed against the petitioner-delinquent relating to non-reporting of his arrest to the officer-superior.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings are quashed. The petitioner is entitled to reinstatement into service with all benefits, pecuniary and otherwise, flowing from the quashing of the impugned proceedings. No costs.