IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 23579 of 2008 Between: Smt. Chouta Nagamma, W/o. Ch. Daveedu, R/o. H.No. 6-162, Venkateshwara Colony, Balajee Nagar, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Secunderabad - 500 078 (A.P.) ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of India, Rep by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, South Block, New Delhi 0 110 001. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Secretary (Through P.S. Alwal) 3 The Director General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, CGO Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi - 110 003. 4 The Inspector General of Police, Southern Sector, CRPF, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad A.P. 5 The ADDL. DIGP, Group Centre, CRPF, Ranga Reddy, Hakimpet Post, Secunderabad 0 500 087 (A.P.) .....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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the 5th respondent herein to produce CRPF Constable China Venkateswarlu (Force No. 913241839) before this Hon'ble Court and consequently shall be set at liberty with immediately effect from the unlawful, illegal, wrongful and unjustifiable detention of the 5th respondent and allow him to meet his family members an move freely like other CRPF Personnel posted along with him Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.NARINDER PAL SINGH Counsel for Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 5: Smt. Rajitha, Central Government Standing Counsel Counsel for the Respondents: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following : ORDER: (per Sri A. Gopal Reddy, J) This writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus by the petitioner alleging that her son China Venkateswarlu, CRPF Constable (Force No. 913241839) has been illegally confined by the respondents in CRPF campus pending completion of the departmental enquiry initiated against him. In response to notice, counter affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 stating that on the alleged detenue posting to 113 Battalion of Ranga Reddy District by the DIGP, CRPF vide signal order dated 30-07- 2008, he was relieved on 02-08-2008. Since he failed to obey the signal order dated 30-07-2008 and unauthorisedly absent himself from the CRPF Camp without prior application/intimation to his competent authority, on the basis of preliminary report, he has been placed under suspension with effect from 04-08-2008 contemplating a disciplinary enquiry against him. After suspension, a charge memo has been served on the alleged detenue on 18- 08-2008 under Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (for short, ‘the Rules’) granting ten days time to submit his written reply/statement of defence, if any, for consideration by the disciplinary authority. The alleged detenue instead of submitting his written reply/statement of defence, requested for supply of xerox copies of the listed documents as per Annexure – III and statement of listed witnesses as per Annexure – IV of memorandum of charges. On considering the request, the required documents have been provided to the delinquent coupled with a further direction to submit his explanation. He made another application on 06-10-2008 to the disciplinary authority for extension of ten days period which has been rejected as he is adopting dilatory tactics and he was also informed to submit written reply by 13-10-2008 failing which the departmental proceedings will commence without further notice or extension of time. On issuing such notice, the alleged detenue filed written reply/statement of defence dated 13-10-2008 and since the same is not convincing, Sri V.J. Sundaram, Deputy Commandant was appointed as the Inquiry Officer to proceed with the departmental enquiry. As per the procedure in vogue applicable in case of a member of the Force under suspension, he should daily attend morning marker, evening roll calls and check roll calls as per the responsibilities applicable on the combatised member of the Force including the member under suspension. The petitioner is not under unlawful or wrongful detention but he was not permitted to leave the place where he is now residing and he has to attend the morning marker, evening roll calls and check roll calls as per the Rules. Since under the Rules, the alleged detenue once suspended cannot be allowed to go out and he has to attend the morning marker, evening roll calls and check rolls and will be permitted to leave the head quarters after obtaining the permission of the disciplinary authority, we do not see any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged detenue has been illegally detained by the respondents. Further, as per the orders of this Court dated 19-12-2008, the alleged detenue was produced before the Court wherein he admitted that he is permitted to take morning parade, evening roll call and check roll call every day but complained that he is not allowed to go outside along with officer and his mother is not being allowed to see him, which fact has been denied by the authorities. The writ petition was adjourned to know the stage of the departmental enquiry. Now it is represented that the alleged detenue has been taken to Gandhi Hospital for check up and from there he has absconded and his whereabouts are not known. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the request made by the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer has been changed by continuing his period of suspension from 02-11-2008 to 30-01- 2009 or till the completion of the departmental enquiry. In view of the same, we do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner that the alleged detenue has been illegally detained by the respondents. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. A.GOPAL REDDY, J R. KANTHA RAO, J 27-01-2009 ks