V. VENKATESHWARLU, v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND 4 ORS.,
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-12-20. V. VENKATESHWARLU, v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND 4 ORS.,. Read the judgment and case...
Judgment text
[ 3413 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION N O:25123 0F 2010 Between: v. venkateshwarru, s/o. Buchaiah, aged about 35 years, sub rnspector of Police (Civil), Hyderabad Range, Hyde"rabad ... PET|TIONER AND 1. The Commissioner Of police, Hyderabad City, Hyderabad 2. The Deputy lnspector General police, of Hyderabad Range, Hyderabad 3- The Director Generar and rnspector Generar porice, of Andhra pradesh, Hyderabad 4. The Government of Andhra pradesh, Rep, by its Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad' 5. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunar, Rep by its Registrar, Hyderabad . ,.
RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 o'f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to lssue a writ, order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of certiorari call for the records relating to the impugned order dt. 24. 2. 2010 in o. A. No. 5B90 of 2006 with IM. A. 2B44I2009 on the fire of the A. p. A. T. and Proc. R. o. No. 4412006 Rc. No. 77otE-2o2tH42o0s dt. 14. 8. 2006 issued by the 2nd respondent and set aside the same as ilegat, arbitrary, unjust and undue advantage and consequenfly declare that the petitioner is entifled to be remained in service with all consequential benefits. l. A. NO: 1 OF 2010(WPMP. NO:32112 OF 2010) 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 direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as S. l.
of Police by suspending the operation of the impugned Order dt. 24. 2. 2010 in O. A. No. 5B90 of 2006 with M. A. 2844120O9 on the file of the A. P. A. T. and Proc. R. O. No. 4412006 Rc. No. 770lE- 2021HN200514. 8. 2006 issued by the 2nd respondent. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 receive Last Pay -Certificate of Petitioner issued by the Respondents, produced by the petitioner in the crrcumstances of the case and in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C. SAI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No. S: SRI SRINIVAS RAO MADIRAJU The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRIIUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION NO.
25123 OF 2O1O JUDG MENT: tl,L'r llut'bLt'\n Iustice Ltxrnt Nararltna Alislutttl) This Writ Petition is f iled assailing the order dated 24. 02. 2010 irr O. A. No. 5890 of 2006 passed by the Andhra ['rac. lesh Admirristrt'rtive J'riburral at Hyderabad (for short, '1-ribunal'). 2. Heard Sri C. Sai Reddv, leamed counsel for petitioner, learncd Goverrrr-nent Pleader for Services-l appearing for responclent Nos. l to 4 and Sri Srinivas Rao Madiraju, learned starrding counsel for respondent No. 5. 3. T'he iacts of the case in r-rutshell are that petitioner was selected as Stiper. rdiary Cadet Trainee Sub-lnspector of Police (for short, 'SCT SI) z,ldc order datcd 01. 08. 2004. The petitioner has to unc-lergo 12 morrths basic training at A. P. Policc Academy, I lycierabacl, orre month training rvith Grey Hounds, one month field operation with Grey Hounds, one month . 1KS.
J & Li\'A,J t|:t'\a ): l:J oJ )010 l --r -frair-ring Weapons and Tactics in AI'SP or any other unit, one month attachment to Police Station of extremist affected districts and five months attachment in clistricts for practical training, and that the petitioner undergone the saicl training and was appointed on probation as Sub-lnspector of Police (Civil) w. e. f. 02. 05. 2005 at N4arket Police Station, Secund erabad. 4. While petitioner was on training in 7h Battalion, AI'SP Dichpally, criminal case was registered against him on a complaint made by Sri Kurakula Raja Narayana that the petitioner beat one Sri Sateesh, co-trainee, and the said complaint was registerecl as Crime No. l75/2005 under Section 326 of IPC and petitioner was arrested on 09. 08. 2005 and later, he was released on bail. The Police has also filed charge-sheet. Petitioner was placed under suspension by the 2nd respondent on 27. 08.
2005 and subsequentlv, services of petitioner were terminated t,ide proceedings dated 27-08. 2005 under Rule 17(a)(ii) of A. P. State and Sul. rordinate Service Rules. 1996 (for I :\ ,\ r .. 1(tJ,t /-\'l. J fiP \o )jl)l of)010 -) 1st to the said orders' the 'Ruies, 1996') antt short, Pursuant and communicated Memo dated 01'09'2005 respondent issueci the same to the L'etitiorrer' order' by the suspension Petrtloner 5. Aggrieved 2005 and the Tribunal by filing O'A'No'6149 of approached the dated 18'10'2005' suspended wav of interirn order Tribunal, bv and also consequential clated 27 the proceedings '08'2005 01'09'2005' the 1't respondent dated proceedings of order clid not irnplement the interim 6. As the responcients \ of 2005 and the dated 18. 10'2005, petitioner fited C'A'No'1024 same was however' the f iled vacate respontlents Petition' dismissedt,irleordertlatecl26,06.
2006andtheinterimorder 26'06'2006' by the order dated was made absolute' Aggrieved 2006 and the said writ filecl W P'No'14877 of the respondents petition was disposed of by this Court uide order dated set aside with wherebv the impugned order was 2L. 07. 2006, on merits in to fresh orders liberty to the responclerlts Pass I I \ . - ,lA1'. J & /.. \tl. J u P ,\o )51)i of2010 accordance with the law and O. A. No. 6149 of 2005 was also disposed of. 7. Pursuant to the said orders, petitioner was reinstated into service oide proceedings dated 21. 07. 2006 and accordingly, petitioner repolted to duty on 26. 07. 2006. Thereafter, probation of the petitioner was terminated and he was disch;rrged from services under Rule 17(a)(ii) of the Rules, 7996 by the 2nd respondent for his unsatisfactory conduct and pt:rformance while undergoing training at 7th Battalion of APSP Dichpally uide proceedings dated 74. 08. 2006 8. Aggrievect by the proceedir-rgs dated 74-08.
2006, petitioner approached the Tribunal by fiting O. A. No. 5890 of 2006 and the Tribunal uide order dated 24. 02. 2010 dismissed the O. A. No. 5890 of 2006. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 9. Learned counsel for petitioner had contended that Tribunal has failed to examine Rute 17 of the Rules, 1996 and relied onlv on Rule 17(a)(ii), under which, petitioner's fras I . t^. t. J(t_\. 1. J tl. r' \'o li ! )l ol )r)ll) ) probation was terminatecj without examining Rule 17(a)(iii) of the Rules, 1996. Learned counsel ior petitioner had contended that Rule 17(a)(iii) contemLrlates that aprpointing authority may, at any time, beforc tl-re expirl'of the prescribed period of probation, post thc prolrationt r unrlcr anothcr of ficer in order to make sure that the previous report made on his performance or conduct by a superior ofiicer is not a biased one. 10. it is furthc.
r conttur{ecl that as per Rule 17(a)(iii) of the Ruies, 1996, petitioner coulLl havc been posted uncler another officer if his performance and conduct was unsatisf actory, however, instead of resortinl,, ttr [iult' l7(a)(iii), tl'rc rcspondcnts terminated the probation of petitioner ln al-I illegal and arbitlary marlner ancl lrence, actiorr of the respondents 1S unsustairrable. [. e-arnerl coulrst,l lurthur contcnded that at no point of time, the authoritv has pointed out any misconduct and doubtec:l, integr itv of tl-re petitiorler during training period; that as per the encluirr' ofl-ict'r's report, onc Sateesh and another co-trainee were quarrelling frequently and that ti-rey . -- r^ \. /,l 1. \.. 1 . / | 1 ,. ,'jr-'i rrr 'r//a) are habitual trouble makers; that the disciplinary authority instead of taking action against both of them' terminated the without any basis' probation of petitioner contended for petitioner strenuously 11.
Learned counsel that crime registered against the petitioner ended in acquittal dated 05'03'2008 by the after full-fledged trial uide iudgment 'Iriat First for of P&E Special Magistrate of Class Judicial in view oi acquittal of Offences, Nizamabad' Therefore, he is entitled to be reinstated into petitioner in criminal case, finally contended that impugned service. Learned counsel 'tribunal to settled principles of order passecl by the is contrary to be set aside' law, perverse and therefore, same is liable '1,2. Pleader for Home had Per contrn,learned Government in training at contended that petitioner, while 7th Battalion' APSP Ditchpaliy, has assaulted Sateesh, co-trainee' with SLR weapon and hit him on back of his head and right [eg knee and as a result, said Sateesh sustained grievous bleeding injuries and became unconscious for some time and that he ,. J(. tJ& al.. lJ t f, \'! , )jl lJ ol 2010 was shifted to Yashoda I{ospital, Somajiguda, Hyclerabad; that a case in Crime No.
170/2005 uncler Section 326 of IPC was registered by the Police, Dichpalh' [']. S. ancl petitiorrer was arrestecl on 09. 08. 2005 and later, he r'r'as releasecl on bail and Police filed charge-sheet. It is further contendcd that petitioner was on probation when l-re assaulted the co-trainee and therefore, there is no requirement o[ reguiar c'ncluiry and further, acquittal in criminal case' rpsp /ncio' c-loes not entitle the petitioner to be reinstated it-tto servicc 13. Learned Government Pleatler while referrirrg to Rule 17(a)(ii) of the Rules, 1996 hacl contendecl that said Rule empowers the authority to tenninate the services of probationer by giving one mottth's ttotict' or one month's pay in lieu of such notice, on acc-oul-lt of urlsatisfactory performance of duties or unsatisfactory conduct or for any other sufficient reason to be recorded in lt,riting.
[n the' present case, Petitioner committed gross misconduct of assaultirlg co-trainee with SLR weapon, thereby inflictlng grievous bleetling irrjuries and lA!. /. \ 1. \ '1.. / tr i, \. , _'i I ' i . / ,1/)//l E -therefore, the clisciplinary authority is justified in terminating the probation oi petitioner. 14. Learned Government Pleader further contended that Rule 17(a)(iii) of the Rules, 7996, referred to and relied upon by the learned counse[ for petitioner, has no application to the present case since the said Rule can be invoked ottly n'here superior officer submits unsatisfactory rePort or1 the performarrce or conduct of trainee. However, in the present case, the probation of petitioner was terminatecl u nder Rule 17(a)(ii) of the Rules, 1996 in view of his involvemerrt in criminal case, which was registered against the petitior-rer under Section 326 of tPC for assaulting co. trainee. Thercfore, Rule 17(a)(iii) has no application to the present case. 15.
It is relevant to refer to 7-Bench judgment of l-Ion'ble Apex Court in Samsher Singh v. State of Pubjab and anotherr, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if the authority cornes to conclusion that on account of irradequacy ,( 974) 2 SCC 3l I I . ,AJ J & 1-,\,I J u / \1,:51)l of:olo for the job or for any temperamental or other object not involving moral turpitude tl-re probatiorrer is unsuitable for the job and hence, can be discharged. 16. It is relevant to refer to the c'lccision of [lon'ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Bunty2, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that acquittal lna criminal case is based on the benefit ol cloubt or arlv other technical reason, tl-re employer can take iuto corrsicleration all relevant facts to take an appropriate decisior-t as to the fitness of an incumbent for appointment/ cotrtirruarrce in sen,ice. 77. In Union of India v.
Methu Meda3, the Hon'ble Apex Court helc{ that if a person is acquittecl bv extcnding benefit of doubt from the charge of an offence involvirrg rnoral turpitude or because the witnesses turned hostile, it i,r'ould not automatically entitled him for emplovment, that too in disciplinec-l forces. t lzuzo. y t z scc os+ (zozz) ' t scc r l,(.!.. / . i 1. \ L/ ]t P \t):il: r at :ilA l() - 18. In tht: yrresent case, Rule 17(a)(ii) of the Rules, 7996, empor^'els tht authoritv to terminate the probationer and discharpJe him from services if the conduct of the probationer is not satisfacton, bv giving one rnonth's notice or oue tlonth's pay in lieu of such notice.
It is evident from the record that petitioner haci involved in the incident of assault of co-trainee while under probation and criminal case was also registered against the pe-titioner and therefore, decision of clisciplinarv authoritv in terrninating the probation of petitioner is within the power confcrred under Rule 17(a)(11) of the Rules, 1996. 79. A perusal of irnpugned order discloses that Tribunal, on detaitecl examination of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as legal position, has come to categorical finding that there is unsatisfactory conduct on the part of the petitioner and, thcrefore, disciplinary authority has rightty erercised its discretion and passed orders terminating the probation of petifioner. I l,\'\ l,{. ,/ \ I . / L1! ' \ ):tl) I t)t lt)itl li 20. In view of above discussion, in considered opinion of this Court, Writ Petition is devoid of arry mc.
rit, further petitioner failed to point out anv irregularity or itlegatitf in the orclcr passed by the Tribunal. Thereforc, Writ lretition fails arrd same is liable to be disrnisscc'l. 27. Accordingly, the \Airit Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications perrc'lirrg, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. K. AMMAJI ASSISTAN GIS //TRUE COPY// SE OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri C. Sai Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] ^. i. i;; 66"io ciroi s"*["'i r, nigh couir for th-e state of Telansana, at Hvderabad [OUTI Rao Madiraju' SCloPUcl 3. 6i,;-bC6Siinivi. 4. Two CD Copies TJ BSR \-, \K2 1 ! I ( HIGH COURT DATED:2011212024 1 tl IC: ( t 5 o ORDER o 04 Ftc ? l'? 5 . l :J , WP. No. 25123 of 2010 * oE (: T' 1- DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @ v#
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.