IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10835 of 2000 Between: M.Janu Naik S/o.Balaiah R/o.Marriguda (V) Nalgonda Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Dy.Inspector General of Police Hyderabad , Ranga Reddy. 2 Superintendent of Police Nalgonda District , Nalgonda. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 a writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to order Dt: 20-3-1998 in O.A.No.110/96 passed by the Hon'ble A.P.Administrative Tribunal , Hyderabad & also orders of the 2nd respondent passed in C.No.188/PR/95 D.O.No.3305/1995 Dt: 26-12-1995 and also orders passed by the 1st respondent in RC.No.493/APPL-28/95/HR, Dt: 28-6- 1995 and set aside the same and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SHAIK ANWAR PASHA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice P.Swaroop Reddy) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner against the orders passed by the A.P.Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.110 of 1996, dated 20.3.1998. The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows: The petitioner was working as Police Constable at Alair Police Station and he was placed under suspension vide proceedings C.No.1536/A6/85, D.O.No.977/85 dated 20.9.1985 alleging that on the night of 21.8.1985, he assaulted one Angadi Laxmi and others labourers in a drunken condition. After conducting an enquiry with regard to the said incident, he was terminated from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was rejected through proceedings dated 28.6.1995. The contention of the petitioner is that the enquiry officer submitted report in 1988 itself but the respondents took seven years for passing final orders and the removal order was passed mechanically without applying mind and without taking into consideration the grounds submitted by the petitioner. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in the said O.A. contending that the petitioner brought one Angadi Laxmi to the Police Station, Alair on the night of 21.8.1985 and assaulted her and the same was witnessed by the labourers, Boya Galaiah and Bikshapathi. The petitioner also took the labourers to the Police Station and beat them and detained them in the Police Station. One B.Pandu Ranga Reddy, Work Inspector also noticed the petitioner assaulting the labourers. Thereafter, the Assistant Engineer went to the Police Station and questioned the petitioner about his action and he was also assaulted by the petitioner. All these facts were informed to the Sub Inspector of Alair. The incident occurred while the petitioner was in intoxication condition. The S.I. of Police came to the Police Station and released all the victims and found the petitioner in a drunken condition and he was sent to Government Civil Hospital, Bhongir, wherein it was found that he had consumed alcohol. The Circle Inspector of Police, Bhongir has conducted preliminary enquiry and submitted report on 8.9.1995 and the petitioner was kept under suspension vide proceedings dated 10.9.1985. Thereafter, a regular departmental enquiry was ordered against the petitioner by proceedings dated 24.12.1985 appointing the SDPO, Suryapet as enquiry officer and he submitted his report on 29.3.1988. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued on 2.11.1988 and the petitioner acknowledged the same on 12.1.1989, but he failed to submit his written statement of defence. Again an express memo dated 1.3.1989 was issued and the same was also acknowledged by the petitioner on 8.3.1989 and reminders were given on 27.9.1989 and 27.10.1993. The petitioner acknowledged them, but did not submit any communication. The final reminder was given on 6.5.1994 to which also the petitioner did not respond. Thereafter, the petitioner was removed from service vide proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 1.4.1995. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed O.A.No.110 of 1996, which was dismissed by the Tribunal holding that the report of the enquiry officer reveals that the charge of forcible detention was proved, but the allegation of assaulting the witnesses was not proved. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition has been filed. Now the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of submitting his explanation and that the enquiry report reveals that the witnesses did not fully support the case against him. Both the contentions cannot be accepted. The record reveals that in spite of several reminders being issued to the petitioner, he failed to respond and never submitted his written statement to the final notice also. So far as the question of proving charges against the petitioner is concerned, the report of the enquiry officer reveals that the charge of forcible detention of a woman, two labourers and Work Inspector without any reasonable grounds being under the influence of alcohol is proved against the petitioner, but the assault against them is not proved. The enquiry report also reveals that in the final written statement of defence the delinquent denied the fact of assaulting women and two other labourers as well as the Work Inspector, but did not dispute about bringing of woman, two labourers and Work Inspector and detaining them in the Police Station, which would show that he forcibly brought them to the Police Station. The medical certificate issued by the Lady Medical Officer, Bhongir Hospital to the effect of drunkenness of the petitioner clearly shows that he was under drunk while on duty. Thus the contentions of the petitioner that the order under challenge is illegal and the case against the petitioner has not been proved and he was not given sufficient opportunity cannot be accepted. The writ petition is therefore devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. _____________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J. 24.7.2009 kpr