IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 5493 of 1999 Between: J.Surendra Babu S/o.Ratnam R/o.Mangalagiri Guntur Dist. .... PETITIONER AND 1 The Special Inspector General of Police (Admn) A.P., Hyderabad 2 The Deputy Inspector General of Police Eluru Range, Eluru 3 The Superintendent of Police, Vijayawada Urban, Vijayawada 4 The Registrar A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the order Dt.06/11/1998 passed in OA.No.68670/90 by the Hon'ble A.P.Administrative Tribunal, and also call for the records relating to the order C.No.144/PR/87, D.O.No.329/89, Dt.21/4/1989 issued by the 3rd respondent and also the records relating to the order C.No.144/PR/87, D.O.No.396/89, Dt.6/5/1989 and consequential orders C.No.44/appeal/89, Dt.11/10/1989 of the 2nd respondent and Rc.No.71/T3/90 Dt.18/7/1990 of the 1st respondent and quash the same by declaring them as illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable and consequently directs respondents 1 to 3 to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service with all back wages and consequential benefits and pass such other order. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.RATNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents.: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 5493 of 1999 ORAL ORDER : { Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. MEENAKUMARI } This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the records firstly relating to the order dated 06-11-1998 passed in OA.No.68670 of 2007 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad; secondly, relating to the order in C.No.144/PR/87, D.O.No.329/89, dated 21-4-1989 issued by the third respondent; thirdly, relating to the order in C.No.144/PR/87, D.O.No.396/89, dated 6-5-1989 and consequential orders in C.No.44/appeal/89, dated 11-10-1989 of the second respondent and RC.No.71/T-3/90, dated 18-7-1990 of the first respondent and quash the same by declaring them as illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service with all backwages and consequential benefits and to pass such other suitable orders as this Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Police Constable on 29-4-1983 and was placed on probation for a period of two years. The third respondent passed orders dated 04-5-1984 terminating his probation by discharging him from service with one-month pay in lieu of notice. Thereafter, he was reinstated into service by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.180 (Home) Passport-C Department, dated 19-3-1987 on 23-4-1987. Thereafter he discharged his duties as police constable. 3. It is stated that a charge memo was issued against the petitioner on the premise that he exhibited reprehensible conduct and dereliction of duty in not preventing occurrence of dacoity and not apprehending the culprits while on lurking duty at Enekepadu on the intervening night of 1/2-5-1984. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Law and Order, West Division, conducted inquiry against the charges and passed minutes ‘C’ No.144/PR/87, dated 03-11- 1998 holding that the charges were proved against him. Further it is stated that the third respondent by proceedings dated 02-4-1989 issued orders removing him from service. Aggrieved by the orders of removal, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the second respondent on 06-6-1989. The second respondent by order dated 11-10-1989 rejected the said appeal. As against the rejection of appeal, the petitioner preferred revision to the first respondent on 9-1-1990 and the first respondent by order dated 18-7-1990 rejected the same. 4. Assailing the orders dated 18-7-1990 passed by the first respondent, the petitioner filed OA.No.68670 of 1990 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The said O.A. was dismissed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad on 06- 11-1998. Questioning the order passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, the present writ petition is filed. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. On consideration of the material available on record, the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal observed that the allegations against the petitioner pertains to reprehensible conduct and dereliction of duty in not preventing the occurrence of dacoity and also not apprehending the culprits though the petitioner and another police constable were in possession of arms and ammunition and in fact they were deputed to prevent property crime. The allegations against the petitioner were of very serious nature, a departmental inquiry was ordered appointing the Sub- Divisional Police Officer (Law and Order), as Enquiry Officer, who conducted detailed enquiry and observed that the petitioner being a probationer at the relevant point of time did not discharge his duty as expected of a policeman and he was a mute spectator for the occurrence of dacoity and did not turn up to apprehend the dacoits even though after hearing the hues and cries and thereby exhibited reprehensible conduct against the people and held that the charge levelled against the petitioner had been proved. Further the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is crystal clear and it goes to show the ingenuity of the petitioner beyond comprehension. 7. It has to be observed that the petitioner being a member of disciplined force ought not to have exhibited reprehensible conduct on the intervening night of 1/2-5-1984 when seven dacoits struck the house of PW.1, beat his father, brother, snatched away gold chain from his mother’s neck and took away two wrist watches, though the Deputy Superintendent of Police arranged a lurking point for Policemen in the house of lorry driver and that the petitioner was on duty at the relevant point of time did not apprehend the dacoits and was a silent spectator at the place of occurrence, where a reign of terror was lingering. The Tribunal after elaborate analysis of the issue, in our considered view, has rightly dismissed the O.A. Having gone through the impugned order and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not see any illegality in the impugned order. 8. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI ________________________ JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR. 25-3-2008. I s L