IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 21728 of 2006 Between: 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Dy.Inspector General of Police, Warangal Range Warangal 3 The Superintendent of Police, Khammam District Khammam ..... PETITIONERS AND Boddu Hari Gopal Rao, Police Constable No.835 Dummuguda PS., Khammam District .....RESPONDENT 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 an appropriate writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to an connected with order dated 11.12.2005 in OA.No.3081 of 2004 on the file of t h e Hon`ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad, and quash the same by holding as erroneous and contrary to law and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No.: MRK.R.K.V. PRASAD The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the records dated 11.12.2005 in OA.No.3081 of 2004 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, and quash the same holding it to be contrary to law, the respondents in the above O.A., filed this writ petition. The respondent herein filed the above O.A. assailing the proceedings Roc. No.73/PR/2001 DO No. 848/2002 dated 29.5.2002 issued by the third petitioner herein, reverting him from the post of Head Constable as a Constable. The respondent herein joined the services as a Police Constable on 20.11.1979 in Khammam District and was promoted as Head Constable on 13.8.2000. While so, on 26.6.2000 Smt. D.Kalavathi, lodged complainant at Khammam-III, Police Station to the effect that the respondent, who is related to her, has developed illicit relationship with her and married her on 12.5.1999 and having led conjugal life for some time, deserted her. On this complaint, a case in Cr. No. 200/2000 for the offences under Sec. 420, 494, 498- A and 506 IPC was registered. The respondent herein was placed under suspension by order dated 12.10.2000, which was revoked on 12.4.200. The respondent was charged for gross misconduct and the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Bhadrachalam, who was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges, has opined that the allegation is proved. The Disciplinary Authority, after issuing final show cause notice and calling for the reply thereto, agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and awarded the punishment of reduction of his rank to a Police Constable, treating the suspension period as not on duty. The respondent herein has preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent, which was rejected vide proceedings dated 29.10.2003. Aggrieved by the action of the petitioners herein, the respondent filed the above O.A. The case of the petitioners herein before the Tribunal is nothing by an amplification of the findings of the Enquiry Officer. It is also their case that inspite of opportunity given to the respondent for adducing evidence, no rebuttal evidence is forthcoming and the Enquiry Officer, after conducting the enquiry in accordance with the Rules, has recorded the finding that the respondent is guilty of the charge. The Tribunal having considered the rival contentions of the parties in extenso, and having regard to the observations of the Enquiry Officer, observed that the essential ingredients in proof of marriage between the respondent and Ms. Kalavathi are lacking and, therefore, the respondent violating Rule 25 of the A.P. C.S. (Conduct) Rules, is not established and, thus, allowed the O.A. setting aside the order impugned therein. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed by the Respondents in the O.A. inter alia contending that the conclusion of the Tribunal with regard to the marriage of the respondent with Ms.Kalavathi, is contrary to the dicta laid down by the Apex Court inasmuch as the Tribunal ought not to have re-assessed the evidence recorded in a Departmental Enquiry and interfered with the findings of the Enquiry Officer with regard to the marriage of the respondent with Ms. Kalavathi. For a better understanding of the lis, it is apt to refer to the findings of the Enquiry Officer, which reads: “..Then she came to Khammam and filed a case i n Khammam 3 town PS against the Charged Officer. She also admitted the statement recorded by the SDPO, Khammam. The Charged Officer HC 835 not discussed in his explanation about the evidence deposed by the victim (PW3). He only stated that the evidence of Kalavathi is not corroborated with any independent witnesses, which is not true. The evidence of Kalavathi is corroborated with the evidence of her mother Bharathamma. It is not true to say that they are interested witnesses. In such cases there will not be any direct witnesses, because the Charge Officer with mollified intention from the beginning developed relationship and had extra marital relationship with D.Kalavathi, who is no other than his niece who also believed him, married her on 12.5.1999, had sexual contacts with her to believe that he is her legally wedded husband. The illegal contacts with a believe (sic. Belief) of legality wedded husband cannot support by any corroborative evidence at any circumstances. Regarding the illegal marriage also no evidence supports, any circumstances, except the lonely evidence of the victim. The Charged Officer, who is working in the Police Department since long time, taken care in handling the issue from the beginning and not given scope to leave a single evidence. B.Kalavathi clearly stated in cross examination by the charged Officer that while they are in discussion for photos, the purohit (Brahmin) enquired about the marriage, where the Charged Officer replied that she is his niece. Then with the fear that Brahmin left the place saying that he cannot ready to stand as a witness for the marriage. Further the victim replied for the question of Charge Officer regarding nude photos taken by him, she stated that it is true that the Charge Officer HC 835 had taken the nude photos of the victim and shown to her. From the above deposition, it is clearly revealed that the Charged Officer HC 835 H.Barigopal had taken the nude photos of victim with a cruel intention to blackmail the victim and blackmailed her..” The finding of the Tribunal that there is no marriage between the respondent and Ms. Kalavathi (PW-3), cannot be sustained, inasmuch as the respondent having developed illicit relations with Ms. Kalavathi, married her on 12.5.1999 at Jeelacheruvu village and enjoyed conjugal life with her and deserted her later and, thus, inculpated himself in Cr. No. 200 of 2000 of P.S. Khammam – III Town. This apart, her evidence further shows that the respondent had snapped her nude. This sort of closest intimacy is suggestive of marriage between the respondent and Ms. Kalavathi. Placed in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, we are of the considered opinion that since the respondent intended keep his marriage discreet, inasmuch as his first wife was living, to ask for corroborative circumstances or corroborative evidence, is nothing but to ask for an impossible thing. The marriage in such a situation shall have to be inferred from the attendant circumstances. Therefore, we are not in agreement with the finding of marriage recorded by the Tribunal and we accordingly set aside the same. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. As a necessary corollary, the order impugned before the Tribunal stands restored. ____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. ___________________ S.ASHOK KUMAR, J. April 19, 2008 MAS.