R NARASIMHA REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a Sub-Inspector in the Police Force of the State. Under G.O.Rt. No. 832, Home dated 10th May, 1973, he was dismissed from service on charge of misconduct. In this petition he challenges that order and seeks a certiorari quashing it.

(2.) Let us note the events which have culminated in the dismissal of the petitioner. As many as eight charges of misconduct were alleged against him and they relate to the period when he was Sub-Inspector of Police at Luxettipet. He was kept under suspension on 12th February, 1966 and the Government referred the case to the Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal where it was numbered as T.E.C. No. 16 of 1967. The Tribunal by its report, dated 26th of September, 1968, opined that charges 1 to 3 had not been proved, but charges 4 to 8 were established. The matter was referred to the Vigilance Commissioner and he agreed with the findings of the Tribunal. A notice, dated 23rd January, 1969, was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause why he should not be dismissed. He sent his explanation on 28th February, 1969. On 23rd June, 1970, he sent a communication seeking the supply of copies of the recommendation of the Tribunal as to punishment and also of the opinion of the Vigilance Commissioner. These were furnished to him along with a memo dated 22nd July, 1970. Thereupon the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 604 of 1971 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the the Government to forbear from passing an order on the report of the Tribunal on the ground that the proceedings before the Tribunal were vitiated by the fact that it had held a joint trial of the petitioner's case along with four other connected matters. This writ petition as well as Writ Appeal No. 148 of 1972 filed against it were both dismissed by this Court with an observation that it would be open to the petitioner to raise these contentions in his further explanation to the Government. The writ appeal was dismissed on 12th April, 1972. The opinion of the Vigilance Commissioner was once again sought by the Government and by his opinion, dated 11 th May, 1972, the Commissioner expressed the view that the proceedings were vitiated by joint trial in view of the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5071 of 1968 (of Kondaiah, J.), dated 7th June, 1970. He stated that charge No. 8 though separate from the other charges cannot form basis for imposing punishment on the petitioner. If the Government so wanted, he said, they could hold a fresh enquiry on that charge or they could as well hold a departmental enquiry. After the dismissal of his writ appeal, the petitioner submitted another explanation wherein he inter alia objected to the validity of the Tribunal's proceedings on the ground of joint trial. The Vigilance Commissioner was once again consulted by the Government and he sent in his opinion dated 26th February, 1973 reiterating his earlier opinion of 11 th May, 1972. Finally, the Government passed the impugned order in G.O.Rt. No. 832 on 10th May, 1973, holding that charge No. 8 is altogether independent and separate from the other charges levelled against the petitioner and the other cases tried by the Tribunal along with this case had nothing to do with this charge and consequently the trial of the petitioner on charge No. 8 could be treated as an independent enquiry. Since there was abundance of evidence in support of the finding of the Tribunal, on charge No. 8 the Government agreed with that finding and imposed the punishment of dismissal.

(3.) Miss V. Lakshmi Devi impugns the dismissal on the ground that the Tribunal's proceedings are vitiated by holding a joint trial. She relies on the decision of Kondaiah, J., in Writ Petition No. 5071 of 1968 in support of this argument she puts forward. Since the trial conducted by the Tribunal is bad, the con- ' sequential punishment would also be invalid. She next submits that the later opinions of the Vigilance Commissioner were not communicated to the petitioner and this failure resulted in denying him adequate opportunity to defend himself.