IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 23322 of 2004 Between: Dunga Manichandra, s/o late Premanandam, r/o Rajam, Rajam Mandalam, Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director General of Police, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Inspector of Police, Visakhapatnam Range, Visakhapatnam. .....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 of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for records in C.No.890/General/97 in RC No.10/3/99 of the Inspector General of Police, Visakhapatnam of record in TD 646/2000 of Director General of Police who by order dt.16-6-2000 aﬃrmed order dt.17-4-2000 of Inspector General of Police and of O.A.No.5709/2002 of A.P.Administrative Tribunal with connected records and quash order dt.4-5-2002 of APAT, Hyderabad holding order of my dismissal from service as totally void abinitio and declaring me to be in continuous service as a consequence and may pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.RAJANNA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. NO.23322 of 2004 ORDER : ( Per HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED ) This Writ Petition has been ﬁled challenging the order dated 4-5-2002 in O.A.No.5709 of 2002 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, ( for short “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal while dismissing the O.A. preferred by the writ petitioner has conﬁrmed the orders passed by the disciplinary and appellate authorities, dismissing the writ petitioner from service. Facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1989, and served at various places in Srikakulam and Visakhapatnam districts. The petitioner while working as Sub Inspector of Police, Hukumpet Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, the following charges were framed against him by the 2nd respondent vide C.No.890/Genl. /97, dated 3-7- 1997 : “ 1) While working as Station House Oﬃcer, Hukumpet Police Station, Visakhapatnam District on 13-12-1996 he demanded Rs.3,500/- from one Koribilla Ramesh, son of Sathya Rao and accepted Rs.2,000/- as illegal gratiﬁcation for not taking his father’s photo, who is accused in Cr.No.47/96 under Sec. 8(b) of A.P. Prohibition Act of Hukumpeta Police Station 2) While working as Hukumpet Police Station he exhibited reprehensible conduct by consuming alcohol and behaved in the public in an unbecoming manner by threatening the public with dire consequences by misusing his official status.” The petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 29-5-1997 issued by the 2nd respondent. The Sub Divisional Police Oﬃcer, Anakapalli was appointed as enquiry oﬃcer to conduct enquiry in the matter. The departmental enquiry was conducted ex-parte against the petitioner, and that the Enquiry Oﬃcer held that the charges were proved against him. Thereafter considering report of the enquiry oﬃcer, 2nd respondent by proceedings dated 17-4-2000 dismissed the petitioner from service. Questioning order of dismissal passed by the 2nd respondent, petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent-appellate authority and 1st respondent-appellate authority by its orders dated 16-6-2000 conﬁrmed the order of dismissal. Challenging the said orders, petitioner preferred O.A. before the Tribunal. The Tribunal on consideration of evidence on record, dismissed the O.A. conﬁrming the order of dismissal. Hence, this Writ Petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the absence of any written or oral complaint, based on a news paper report, charges were framed against the petitioner, and the enquiry oﬃcer proceeded with the enquiry without giving suﬃcient opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case and passed orders holding that charges against the petitioner were proved. Learned counsel also submits that though there was a request for change of enquiry oﬃcer at the initial stage itself, the same was not at all considered and petitioner was set ex-parte in the enquiry. Learned counsel further contends that no independent witness was examined, and that the Tribunal also did not advert to the issues in proper manner and in a casual way passed the impugned order confirming orders passed by the disciplinary as well as appellate authorities. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Services contends that considering the gravity of charges leveled against the petitioner, enquiry oﬃcer held that petitioner deserves serious punishment and that disciplinary as well appellate authorities, have conﬁrmed the punishment of dismissal from service and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and on perusal of entire material available on record, it is seen that there are several inﬁrmities and lapses on the part of the authorities while conducting the enquiry. There was no written complaint at all from any body, and the entire disciplinary proceedings were initiated based on a news paper report. The petitioner made representation on 30-7-1998 to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Visakhapatnam Range, Visakhapatnam, for change of Enquiry Oﬃcer and the same was rejected by proceedings dated 18-8-1998 stating that “ your request for the change of Enquiry Oﬃcer is considered and rejected”. It is noteworthy that the petitioner from the initial stage of departmental proceedings, was requesting the authorities for change of enquiry oﬃcer including by issuing telegrams stating that he will not get any justice at the hands of the enquiry oﬃcer, who is biased against him. No reasons were assigned by the authorities for rejecting his request and the Enquiry Oﬃcer proceeded with the enquiry. Out of the ﬁve witness examined in the enquiry except P.W.5- Sub Divisional Police Oﬃcer, Paderu, other witnesses were interested and accused in other crimes. The Enquiry Oﬃcer while holding that the charges against the petitioner are proved, also commented that “ the conduct and behavior of the delinquent badly aﬀected the image of the police department and deserves serious notice”. In the interest of justice, it is always desirable that the enquiry should be fair and impartial. As stated above, the petitioner was set ex- parte in the inquiry, further the Enquiry Oﬃcer has also exceeded the limits while concluding the enquiry. The Enquiry Oﬃcer has to conduct the enquiry in a fair manner, and he ought not to have expressed any opinion impressing upon the disciplinary authority to take serious view of the matter. The disciplinary authority also ought to have examined the matter independently, instead of blindly agreeing with the ﬁndings of the Enquiry Oﬃcer while imposing the major punishment of dismissal from service. Nonetheless, the dismissal order passed by the disciplinary authority as conﬁrmed by the appellate authority is dis-proportionate to the gravity of oﬀence alleged. In the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the alleged act of misconduct. The Tribunal also did not advert to all these aspects in proper perspective and therefore, the matter has to be considered objectively by taking into account the inﬁrmities committed by the enquiry officer. In the normal circumstance, we would have remanded the mater back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. However considering the circumstances that the matter is pending for more than 9 years and that the petitioner is out of employment for all these years, and that the enquiry was conducted based on a new paper report and to give a quietus to the matter to meet the ends of justice direct the authorities that petitioner be reinstated into service forthwith, but without backwages. The petitioner is entitled for all other beneﬁts; except backwages. The suspension allowance if any paid shall not be recovered from the petitioner. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. ______________ GM, J ______________ CVR, J Kk/ 27-8-2008