THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Dated 18-8-2010 WP NO.7853 OF 2005 VV Murahari, S/o.Laxmaiah ...Petitioner Vs. 1. State of AP rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Hyderabad & Others ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WP NO.7853 OF 2005 Order :: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed ) This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings C.No.443/PR.89, GO No.419/1991, dated 18-4-1991 issued by the 4th respondent and the consequential proceedings issued by the 3rd and 2nd respondents including the Memo No.16968/Pol.D/A1/2000, dated 4-8-2000 issued by the 1st respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and also ultra-virus APCS (CCA) Rules and to set aside the same including the order dated 13-4-2004 passed in OA No.2568 of 2001 by the Tribunal and issue consequential directions directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary, seniority etc. The brief facts of the case are:- The petitioner was appointed as Armed Reserve Police Constable on 12-6-1982 in Khammam District and while working as such he was issued with a charge memo by the 4th respondent-Superintendent of Police, Khammam District, framing three charges namely; i) exhibiting gross mis-conduct in involving in a criminal case in Cr.No.47 registered for the offences under Section 366 IPC r/w.Section 511 IPC of Julurpad PS on 24-7-1984 while on leave from 30-6-1984 and extended till 7-8-1984. ii) Exhibiting gross dereliction of duty in absenting from duty without leave or permission from 14-10-1988 to 22-10- 1988, from 9-12-1988 to 10-12-1988 and dis-obeying the orders of superiors in extending leave from 12-1-1989 to 17-1-1989; and iii) Exhibiting gross misconduct in marrying WHG (Woman Home Guard) Smt.Manimala on 25-8-1988 at Narasimha Swamy Temple at Khammam, making her to believe that he divorced his first wife Meenakshi, which is not a fact. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDOP), Yellandu, conducted enquiry into the charges and after examining the witnesses and considering the documentary evidence held that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. It is stated that a copy of the minutes drawn were served on the petitioner, to which the petitioner made representation dated 9-9-1990 stating that in the year 1984 his old friends implicated him in the criminal case and it was ended in acquittal. For the unauthorized absence, he stated that his sister was ill and in that connection he extended the leave. As regards the last charge, he stated that his first wife deserted him for a long time and therefore he married another lady on 25-8-1988 and was paying Rs.300/- to his first wife. Not convinced by his explanation, the 4th respondent-Superintendent of Police, Khammam District, imposed a punishment of dismissal from service by proceedings dated 18-4-1991. The petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority and revision before the revisional authority and mercy petition, which confirmed the order of dismissal passed by the primary authority. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by way of filing the OA and the Tribunal by the impugned order dismissed the OA confirming the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service. Hence, this writ petition by the applicant. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II. Perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and the authorities. Three charges are levelled against the petitioner, firstly, that he involved in a criminal case in Cr.No.47 registered for the offences under Section 366 IPC r/w. Section 511 IPC of Julurpad PS on 24-7-1984 while on leave from 30-6-1984. On this charge, the Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner was involved in the offence and the contention that some old friends of the petitioner implicated him in the false case could not be substantiated. As observed by the Tribunal the criminal case ended in acquittal on account of benefit of doubt and it is not a clean acquittal. The next charge relates to exhibition of gross dereliction of duty in absenting from duty without prior sanction of leave and dis-obeying the orders of superiors in extending leave from 12-1-1989 to 17-1-1989, to this the explanation of the petitioner is that he has attended to her sister who had undergone operation and he has to extend the leave. The petitioner produced medical certificate issued by a private practitioner and it is not valid as per AP Police Manual Part-I, unless and until it is countersigned by the Assistant Civil Surgeon of the Government Hospital. The last charge is exhibiting gross misconduct in marrying WHG (Woman Home Guard) Smt.Manimala on 25-8-1988 at Narasimha Swamy Temple at Khammam, making her to believe that he divorced his first wife. The explanation of the petitioner to this charge is one of denial. He stated that he never ever married the said lady. It is pertinent to note that during the enquiry as many as six witnesses were examined and 22 documents were marked. The evidence brought before the enquiry officer goes to show that the petitioner was involved in the criminal case and the criminal case ended in acquittal on account of benefit of doubt. It is not expected of person that too belonging to Police force to involve in a criminal case. It is unbecoming for a member of the Police force to involve in a criminal case. The evidence of PWs.1 to 3, among them PW-1 is the second wife of the petitioner and PW-2 pujari of the temple. In the enquiry it was established that the petitioner married PW-1 as second wife. As observed by the Tribunal even if the consent of the first wife is given that has no bearing on the issue since the petitioner being a government servant has no option to have second marriage as per the Civil Service Conduct Rules. The factum of divorce is also not proved. In the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and also the orders passed by the statutory authorities does not call for any interference by this Court. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ________________ G.CHANDRAIAH,J Dated : 18-8-2010 Nrg. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WP NO.7853 OF 2005 18-8-2010