IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9813 of 2008 Between: P.Lakshminarayana S/o.Bhaskara Rao KTPS, Paloncha, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Inspector General of Police (Admn) O/o Addl. D.G.P. Special Protection Force, Government of A.P., Hyderabad. 3 The Commandant (H), Special Protection Force, O/o Addl. D.G.P. Special Protection Force, Government of A.P., 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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned Proceedings Vide PR.No.144/SPF/2001 (O.o.No.638/2002) dated 23.8.2002 on the file of the 3rd respondent and the impugned proceedings vide P.R.No.144/SPF/2001 (O.o.No.1251/2002), dated 23.12.2002 issued by the 2nd respondent and impugned orders made in O.A.No.368 of 2005 dated 3.12.2007 on the file of A.P. Administrative Tribunal and to quash the same as the same are illegal, arbitrary and violative of ARt. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from violative of principles of natural justice and A.P. Civil Service (CCA) Rules and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.JANARDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : O R D E R: (Per Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of Certiorari to quash impugned proceedings vide PR.NO.144/SPF/2001 (O.O.No.638/2002), dated 23.8.2002 on the file of 3rd respondent and proceedings vide P.R.No.144/SPF/2001 (O.o.No.1251 of 2002), dated 23.12.2002 issued by the 2nd respondent and orders made in O.A.No.368 of 2005 dated 3.12.2007 on the file of A.P. Administrative Tribunal. 2. Petitioner-P.Lakshminarayana is a Scheduled Tribe. He was selected to the post of Constable in Special Protection Force during the year 1998 and was posted at KTPS, Paloncha in the month of November, 1998. The petitioner was kept under suspension vide proceedings PR.No.144/SPF/2001 (O.o.No.1023 of 2001) on the allegation that he committed theft of Shakti Gas Cylinder which was kept at the site for the purpose of welding works by a local contractor. The petitioner was issued a charge memo. It is averred that the petitioner was on centry duty on the intervening night of 31-7-2001 and 1-8-2001 from 2100 to 0600 hours. The petitioner was issued a charge memo dated 25-9-2001, which reads a sunder: “ P.laxminarayana, CT.2540 of SPF: KTPS: Paloncha was posted at ICHP, BOBR from 2100 to 0600 hours on 31.7.2001 to 1.8.2001. It is very important post even though he simply left the post and went Central Stores and from there he has stolen one Shakti Gas Cylinder and tied his cycle carrier and about 0225 hours and shifted from that place and hidden it in the bushes. The CT.2532 N.Simhachalam has noticed and informed it to the main gate. P.Laxminarayana, CT.2540 by his above acts exhibited lack of integrity and conduct of unbecoming of a Government Servant by violating rules APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1964.” The petitioner submitted detailed report explaining that while on centry duty he saw one unknown person entering the premises with a cycle with some article in gunny bag and tried to escape and upon chase the culprit threw the gunny bag in the bushes and escaped, which was found to be a gas cylinder. It is further stated that the gas cylinder was brought to the centry duty office and kept in safe custody. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted in which the Enquiry Officer concluded that the charge against the petitioner as proved. The petitioner has submitted his explanation/objections to the enquiry report, and thereupon the disciplinary authority-R3 imposed on the petitioner extreme punishment of removal from service vide order in PR.NO.144/SPF/2001 (O.o.No.638/2002), dated 23.8.2002. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent-The Inspector General of Police (Administration), Hyderabad on 27.9.2002. The appellate authority rejected the appeal vide O.o.No.1251 of 2002, dated 23-12-2002. Aggrieved by the orders of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner has approached the A.P. Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.368 of 2005, which was dismissed by the order impugned in this writ petition dated 3.12.2007. Against which this writ petition is filed by the petitioner. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services I. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the enquiry officer ought to have analysed the statements of the witnesses and instead he jumped to conclusion without assigning any reasons and hence the enquiry is perfunctory. It is further submitted that only one witness i.e. P.W.1 has stated that the petitioner while he was on duty has taken the gas cylinder and kept the same in bushes and whereas the other witnesses i.e. P.Ws.2 to 7 have not stated anything about the involvement of the petitioner in removing the gas cylinder. He further submitted that when the enquiry itself was perfunctory the petitioner cannot be imposed the extreme punishment of removal from service, that too when the gas cylinder was found in the guardroom. To substantiate his contentions, he relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer & Ors.[1], wherein it is held that the Enquiry Officer save setting out the names of the witnesses, did not discuss the evidence and merely recorded his ipse dixit that the charges were proved and did not assign a single reason why the evidence produced by the delinquent did not appeal to him or was considered not creditworthy, the order of termination of service based on such proceeding was liable to be set aside. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Services I submitted that when once P.W.1 has already stated about the involvement of the petitioner that the petitioner has taken the gas cylinder, that evidence itself is sufficient for imposing punishment of removal from service. He further submitted that this Court cannot while exercising judicial review normally interfere with the findings of the disciplinary authority, unless the punishment is so excessive and disproportionate. 6. We have analysed the report of the enquiry officer. It is clear from the report that the enquiry officer has not appreciated the evidence of all the witnesses in great detail, except the evidence of PW.1, on which the enquiry officer relied upon and imposed the punishment. It is also clear from the enquiry report that the enquiry officer has not given any cogent and convincing reasons for coming to the conclusion that the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter back to the enquiry officer for conducting the enquiry afresh with regard to the alleged misconduct of the delinquent, after giving opportunity to both sides. 8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the report of the enquiry officer and the matter is remanded back to the enquiry officer for conducting the enquiry afresh after giving opportunity to both sides. No order as to costs. ___________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:02nd December, 2008. tnb ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR} THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.9813 OF 2008 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by Justice Ghulam Mohammed) 2nd December, 2008 [1] 1985(3) Supreme Court Cases 378