IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 26421 of 2007 Between: S. Nagaraju S/o. Govindarajulu Chengumal PS, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hyderabad Range, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintendent of Police, Ranga Reddy District. at Lakidikapool, Hyderabad. .....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 writ order or direction one more particularly in the nature of writ Certiorari a) to Call for the records in OA No. 2018/2003 dt.25-7-207 on the file of Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and quash the same b) and consequently set aside the Proc.No. DO NO 592/2001 RC No. 49/PR/A5/RR/97/2001 dt. 12-4-2001 of the Respondent No.2 and further declare that the petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits like pay, seniority, promotion and other service benefits on par with his juniors and c) and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:M/s.N.USHA KIRAN Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.26421 of 2007 ORDER: (per Smt. T.Meena Kumari,J) This writ petition is filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to O.A. No. 2018 of 2003, dated 25.7.2007 on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash the same. He also sought for a consequential direction to set aside the proceedings bearing D. No. 592/2001, dated 12.4.2001 of the 2nd respondent by declaring that the petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits like pay, seniority, promotion and other service benefits on par with his juniors and to pass such other orders. The petitioner herein was appointed as Police Constable in the year 1989. While He suddenly became ill and could not attend the office from 25.8.1995 and basing on the advice of the doctor, he applied for sick leave duly enclosing the certificate issued by the doctor. While so, on 28.09.1995, the 2nd respondent suspended the petitioner from service on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case and that he has not followed the requisite procedure for applying sick leave. Subsequently, on 18.8.1997, a charge memo was also issued to the petitioner , which reads thus: “Sri S. Nagaraju, PC 2154 while working at Kukatpally PS has absented himself from duty fro 28.8.1995 without any leave or permission and involved himself as an accused in Cr. No. 94/95 u/s 411 IPC of Ramachandrapuram, Medak Dist., for dishonestly receiving the retaining stolen property in his possession and thus exhibited gross mis-conduct in violation of Rule 3(1 to 3) of the Conduct Rules.” Petitioner submitted his explanation to the said charge memo. Being dissatisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the respondents appointed an enquiry officer to enquire into the matter. The Enquiry Officer after conducting enquiry into the matter submitted his report holding the charge as proved. Basing on the report of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority through order dated 3.7.2001, imposed the punishment of removal. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 1572 of 2001, which was allowed with a direction to the disciplinary authority to impose any lesser penalty other than dismissal and compulsory retirement. Pursuant to the same, the 2nd respondent through order dated 12.4.2001, while reinstating the petitioner into service, awarded punishment of reduction in time of scale of pay by two stages for two years with effect on his future increments and pension. However, the period of suspension from 5.10.1995 to 8.3.2001 till the date of his reporting for duty was treated as not on duty. Assailing the same, the petitioner again filed O.A. No.2018 of 2003 before the tribunal. The Tribunal, through the impugned order dated dismissed the O.A. Hence, the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home and perused the impugned order. There is no dispute about the fact that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for the alleged charge and the disciplinary authority after due enquiry into the matter, imposed the punishment of removal from service. Aggrieved, petitioner challenged the said order before the Tribunal by way of filing O.A. No.1572 of 2001. The Tribunal through order dated 15.3.2001, while allowing the O.A. directed the disciplinary authority to impose any lesser punishment other than dismissal and compulsory retirement. Pursuant to which, the disciplinary authority through proceedings dated 12.4.2001, while taking into consideration Rule 9 of the A.P.C.S. (CC&A) Rules, 1991, imposed the punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for two years with effect on his future increments and pension. In view of the gravity of the mis-conduct alleged and proved against the petitioner, it cannot be said that the penalty as imposed by the 2nd respondent, through order dated 12.4.2001, is unjust or illegal. The Tribunal taking all these aspects into consideration, rightly dismissed the O.A. In the circumstances, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of the Tribunal warranting interference. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ T. MEENA KUMARI,J DATE: 3rd March, 2008 __________________ G. CHANDRAIAH,J pnb