STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. MOTUPALLI NARASIMHA RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners seeking Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ by calling for the records, relating to and connected with the Orders, dtd. 13/4/2016 in O.A.No.4166 of 2014 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and to quash or set aside the same, as illegal, contrary to law, in exercise of jurisdiction and unconstitutional, and to pass such other Order or Orders, which are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(2.) The respondent No.1, who is working as Police Constable in Gajuwaka Police Station, Duvvada Zone of Visakhapatnam city, filed O.A.No.4166 of 2014 assailing the legality of proceedings in D.O.No.412 of 2014, C.No.27/MPR/A10/2014, dtd. 15/5/2014, issued by the 2nd petitioner/2nd respondent, where under 2nd respondent imposed penalty PPI for three years without effect on future increments and pension. It is the contention of the 1st respondent before the Administrative Tribunal that he was appointed as Police Constable in the year 1993 and was deputed to Railway Police in the year 1995, and he was repatriated to his parent Department in the year 2000, and gain in the year 2001 deputed to Railway Police and was allotted to Bhimavaram Railway Police Station. He submits that while he was working at Bhimavaram Railway Police Station, he was falsely implicated in Crime No.92 of 2004 for the offences punishable under Ss. 353, 323 of IPC and Sec. 3(i)x) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989, wherein he obtained anticipatory bail on 31/3/2005 with a direction to surrender before the Police and execute bonds for Rs.10,000.00 with two sureties each. The 1 st respondent submits that as per directions of the Court, along with other accused in the said case he approached the Railway Police Station, Nidadavole and requested the Station House Officer to accept the surrender and release him, who in turn stated that unless the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Railway Police Station, Visakhapatnam instruct him to accept the bail bonds, he will not accept, who also demanded Rs.15,000.00 as a bribe for accepting the sureties, but he reduced the bribe amount to Rs.12,000.00 on request of the 1st respondent. As the Station House Officer, Nidadavole Railway Police Station demanded the bribe, the 1st respondent contacted TV-9 Channel Investigation Team, who conducted sting operation, and recorded the entire episode of demand and acceptance of bribe by the officials concerned for accepting the bail bonds of the 1st respondent and other accused in the crime, and ultimately they were all placed under suspension, and later on removed from service also after conducting the departmental enquiry. The 1st respondent alleged that Mr.A.Satyanarayana, who was the Inspector of Railway Police, Rajahmundry at the relevant point of time, who had role in that episode, was also dismissed from the service initially by the Government, later on said person filed review application, wherein penalty was modified by withholding his annual grade increments for two years with cumulative effect on future increments and pension, vide G.O.Ms.No.269, Home (Ser.I) Department, dtd. 21/10/2010. Then, aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent who is one of the victims, made a representation through proper channel to the Government to review its decision of reinstatement of Mr.A.Satyanarayana and take appropriate action against the then Principal Secretary to Home, Government of Andhra Pradesh by name Mr.P.Gautham Kumar, who retired from service. The Government considered the said representation of the 1st respondent as violation of Rule 17 of A.P.Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, directed the 2nd petitioner/Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam city to take stringent action against the 1st respondent/petitioner for finding fault with the Orders of the Government. Then, the 2nd petitioner issued a charge memo, dtd. 20/3/2014 to the 1st respondent under Rule 22 of A.P.Civil Services (CC & A) Rules, 1991, wherein the 1st respondent submitted detailed written statement, denying the charges. The 1st respondent alleged that without considering his written statement, the 2nd petitioner/2nd respondent has issued proceedings, imposing penalty of PPI for three years without effect on future increments and pension, which said to be illegal and arbitrary, and filed petition before the Administrative Tribunal challenging the same.

(3.) The petitioners herein, who are the respondents in O.A. filed counter-affidavit admitting the facts as pleaded in the petition before the Administrative Tribunal with regard to initiation of departmental enquiry against the 1st respondent under Rule 22 of CCA Rules, 1991, and justifying the penalty imposed, on the ground that being a public servant, the 1st respondent found fault with the action of the Government and sought stringent action against the then Home Secretary Mr.P.Gautham Kumar, who retired from the service, on the ground that the 1st respondent cannot find fault with the action of the Government legally.