IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No: 1578 of 2007 BETWEEN: R. Ramulu, S/o.Kistaiah, Police Constable, IV Battalion, A.P., Warangal, Warangal District. ... PETITIONER AND The Inspector General of Police, A.P. Special Police Battalions, Hyderabad and two others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. A. RAJENDRA BABU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) Petitioner is the applicant in O.A.No.6091 of 1999 filed before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal questioning the order passed by the third respondent – Commandant, IV Batttalion, A.P. Special Force, Warangal vide proceedings C.No.81/OE/A6/95 dated 23.11.1995, as confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities – respondents 2 and 1 respectively vide their proceedings in C.No.29/Appl/96 dated 26.06.1996 and proceedings No.2/Rev/A3/97 dated 13.02.1997 in imposing punishment and the reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years without effect and the period of suspension with effect from 09.05.1995 to 18.10.1995 for a period of five months was treated as not on duty. The tribunal did not interfere with the aforesaid orders and dismissed the said OA. 2. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed contending that the order of punishment and reducing time scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years without effect and treating the period of suspension as not on duty is illegal, erroneous and it cannot be said that the charges framed against the petitioner are said to have been proved and established. It is further contended that he took permission to go to Sirikonda Village and he was not present in camp for 1½ hour and during the said period it cannot be said that he has committed the offence as alleged. 3. The charge against the petitioner is that: “Gross misconduct of his unauthorized absence from his Post Camp Kothalapur PS from 1830 hours to 2045 hours without leave and permission of his superiors and unwarranted entry into the house of a married civilian woman Smt. R. Laxmi W/o. Hanumanthu in drunken stage with malafide intention on 09.04.2005 at Srikonda village, which affected the image of APSP.” The charge memo was issued on 24.05.1995 calling upon the applicant/petitioner to submit his explanation but he has not submitted any written statement and he never denied the charge, but requested to conduct regular enquiry. Accordingly, an oral enquiry was ordered and the disciplinary authority appointed an Assistant Commandant Mr. B. Surender to conduct enquiry against the petitioner vide order No.81/OE/A6/95 dated 25.06.1995. The enquiry officer conducted enquiry and examined 9 witnesses on behalf of the prosecution and 16 documents were filed giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself. The petitioner neither produced any witnesses nor submitted his written statement for his defence and he did not cross-examine any of the witnesses also. 4. P.Ws.1 to 4 and 9, the departmental witnesses, were examined in connection with the aforesaid charge with respect to unauthorized absence of the petitioner from duty without permission on the date of occurrence when this incident had happened. P.W.5, Smt. Rikkala Laxmi with whom the petitioner misbehaved, stated that while she was returning from agricultural work at 7 PM on 09.04.1995 to her house, the village servant Md. Akhtar (P.W.8) along with the petitioner came to her house and the petitioner asked her whether there are any male persons available in the house. On noticing that there are no male members in the house, the petitioner asked to give some drinking water and she offered him drinking water and later he asked her for sitting place and she showed him the cot of her son. The petitioner asked her whether she got she-buffaloes and soon after that he tried to come closer to her and then she shouted loudly for her son and her husband and on hearing her cries, the village servant and the petitioner went away from the place. Thereafter, she stated the said incident to one Lanka Dhasari Laxmi Rajam (P.W.7) who was approaching her house. P.W.6, the village person in-charge, corroborated the evidence of P.W.5. P.W.7 to whom the incident was informed also corroborated with P.W.5. Even P.W.8, the village servant, who accompanied the petitioner to the house of P.W.5, confirmed the statement of P.W.5. The petitioner has not chosen to cross-examine any of them and he has not adduced any independent oral or documentary evidence and therefore, the enquiry officer based on the aforesaid evidence available on record held that the petitioner, Police Constable-497, misbehaved with P.W.5 by leaving the official duty with any permission from his higher authorities and absented for his duty on 09.04.1995 from 1830 hours to 2045 hours and in the meanwhile he went to Srikonda village in a drunken condition with an evil intention and entered into the house of a married woman, P.W.5, which incident was brought to the notice of the police department and which led to departmental enquiry and the evidence available on record established the said charge. On a written statement submitted by the petitioner on 08.11.1995 after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, the disciplinary authority imposed the aforesaid punishment believing that the said charge was rightly held to be proved. 5. As a matter of fact, the disciplinary authority stated that it has taken a lenient view taking into consideration his long service of 19 years and ordered that the pay of the petitioner be reduced in time scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years without effect on future and the period of suspension with effect from 09.05.1995 and 18.10.1995 was to be treated as not on duty. We are of the opinion that the charge against the petitioner is very grave and his act is unbecoming of a police constable and the appellate and the revisional authority have rightly confirmed the said penalty and the tribunal also having considered the case of the petitioner rightly dismissed the said OA. We are of the opinion that the tribunal did not commit any error in dismissing the OA. 6. In the instant case, the petitioner admitted his going to house of P.W.5 and the village servant (P.W.8) also corroborated about the fact that he accompanied the petitioner. As a matter of fact, the disciplinary authority has taken a very lenient view when the petitioner has not chosen to rebut the evidence available against him and to examine any witness and to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. Insofar as the disciplinary enquiry is concerned, the matter has been considered by taking into consideration the preponderance of probabilities and the charge in a disciplinary case need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt like in a criminal case. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, We do not see any ground warranting interference with the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J February 9, 2010 DSK