IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13308 of 1999 Between: HAV/SHT KS. Rao … Petitioner AND The Chief of the Army Staff, Army Headquarters, New Delhi, & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Smt. G. Shoba for Sri V. Jagapathi This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13308 of 1999 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari to quash Summary Court Martial proceedings dated 18.08.1998 of respondent No.5. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner, who was a Havildar, faced disciplinary proceedings for allegedly receiving Rs.16,000/- as a reward for not disclosing the misdeeds of his immediate superior officer Sri C.S. Rao, Junior Commissioned Officer, In-charge of Detachment 9 composite platoon attached with 12 sector Rastriya Rifles. The sole charge framed against the petitioner, reads as under: “AA Sec.64 (e). Accepting for himself a gratification as a reward for indulgence for a person in the service. In that he, at field between Sep 96 to Oct 97, while performing the duties of In-charge Central Ledger Section at Det.9 Comp PL ASC C/o 12 Sect RR, accepted a sum of Rs.16,000/- (Rupees sixteen thousand only), as a reward from JC-208959H Sub/SKT CS Rao of the same unit, for not reporting to the superior authority the manner in which the said JCO was receiving illegal gratification from various contractors.” The enquiry was held in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Three witnesses were examined in support of the charge apart from recording the statement of the petitioner by the enquiry officer. On the basis of the enquiry report, the petitioner was dismissed from service by respondent No.5 by order dated 18.08.1998. An appeal filed against the said order ended in its dismissal. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner advanced two contentions, namely; that none of the three witnesses, who were examined by the department, deposed in support of the charge and therefore the order of penalty is not passed on any evidence and that in any event, the penalty of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the proven misconduct. In my considered view, both these contentions of the learned counsel deserve to be rejected. Though witness Nos.1 to 3 have not stated anything about the petitioner receiving money, witness No.2, the superior officer from whom the money is allegedly received by the petitioner stated that he used to give money “of and on” to the petitioner for purchase of stationary and that it was not a regular feature. However, the statement of the accused recorded by the enquiry officer, reads as under: “I, 6374261M Havildar Kongara Subba Rao of 508 ASC Bn States:- I was posted to Detachment 9 composite Platoon in April 1996 where I was incharge of Basic/Necessary Group and Fresh Group from time to time, Sub CS Rao has been given me Rs.1,500/- (Rupees fifteen hundred only) to Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) once in a while on his own while till end came to a total of Rs.16,000/- (approximately) (Rupees sixteen thousand only). I used to ask him why he is giving me this money but he used to force me to take the money. It is my fault that I have taken money from Sub CS Rao. The statement as above has been read over to me in the language I understand and I sign it as correct.” A reading of the above reproduced statement clearly shows that the petitioner has admitted in the clearest possible terms that he received a total sum of Rs.16,000/- from the JCO and he failed to explain the purpose for which he received the said money. Therefore, in the face of his own unequivocal statement, the charge is clearly proved. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner made strenuous efforts to convince this Court that the said statement was made under coercion, as the petitioner failed to file any material in support of the said contention, I have not felt convinced to accept this statement of the learned counsel. As regards the contention that the penalty of dismissal is disproportionate to the proven misconduct, the said contention is also liable to be rejected because the charge of receiving money with an ill-motive of not disclosing the misdeeds of the superior officer is serious enough warranting the punishment of dismissal. It cannot be said that such a punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the proven misconduct, for this Court to interfere with the quantum of punishment. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.16290 of 1999 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 16.12.2008 ES