*THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD +WRIT PETITION No: 449 of 2010 and WRIT PETITION No: 1034 of 2010 % 09.03.2010 WRIT PETITION No: 449 of 2010 Between: # E.Venkateshwarlu ..... PETITIONER(S) And $ The Government of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary to Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENT(S) ! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri P.Amarender ^ Counsel for Respondents : Govt. Pleader for Services-I WRIT PETITION No: 1034 of 2010 Between: # The Government of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary to Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others ..... PETITIONER(S) AND $ E.Venkateshwarlu .....RESPONDENT(S) ! Counsel for Petitioners : Govt. Pleader for Services-I ^ Counsel for Respondent : Sri P.Amarender <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ? CASES REFERRED: (1) 2003 (4) SUPREME 313 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No: 449 of 2010 and WRIT PETITION No: 1034 of 2010 WRIT PETITION No: 449 of 2010 Between: E.Venkateshwarlu ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The Government of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary to Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENT(S) WRIT PETITION No: 1034 of 2010 Between: The Government of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary to Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others ..... PETITIONER(S) AND E.Venkateshwarlu .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No: 449 of 2010 and WRIT PETITION No: 1034 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: (per HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED) Since the issue involved in both these writ petitions is same, and since these petitions arise out of an order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad in O.A.No.11638 of 2002 dated 10.02.2009, and since the parties in these petitions and the parties before the Tribunal are same, they are being disposed of by a common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal in O.A.No.11638 of 2002. The facts, in brief, are as follows: The applicant was appointed as a Police Constable in the year 1975. Later, he was selected and appointed as Head Constable in December, 1999. While so, he, along with another police constable, was sent to bandobust duty on 10.08.1990 to Alamkonda village which is a faction village. On 19.08.1990, at about 7.00 a.m., two rival groups attacked each other with deadly weapons, sticks and bombs and there were in all 200 men participated in the attack from both sides. The applicant who was on duty along with another police constable tried to control the mob by showing the guns after loading them and, as they did not stop, the applicant and another police constable opened fire on the mob. Since the gun which was given to him was very low capacity gun which covers only 50 meters distance and can fire only one bullet at a time and has to be loaded for every time, he could not prevent the killing of four persons in the said incident. Later, he and another police constable explained the incident to the Sub- Inspector of Police. Thereafter, on 24.08.1990, the 4th respondent suspended the applicant and conducted inquiry. On receipt of the inquiry report, the 4th respondent, by proceedings in R.C.No.PR/166/91 dated 04.12.1992 imposed a punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages to be spent on duty for a period of two years with effect on future increments and pension. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred an appeal to the 3rd respondent and the same was rejected by proceedings in C.No.17/Appl/93 dated 08.09.1993. Aggrieved thereby, he filed a revision petition before the 2nd respondent and the same was also rejected by proceedings in L.Dis.No.43/L&O/RR.1/2001 dated 13.11.2001. Therefore, the applicant filed O.A.No.11638 of 2002 before the Tribunal seeking to set aside the aforementioned orders as illegal and arbitrary; and to direct the respondents to exonerate him from the punishment imposed by the impugned orders in toto by granting the regular scale of pay along with increments and other consequential benefits. In their counter, the respondent- authorities stated that the applicant and another police constable did not effectively open fire to prevent the accused in perpetrating the crime and also failed to gather advance information about the incident in which four persons were killed and the inquiry was conducted in accordance with the rules and there was no violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, the punishment awarded to the applicant was justified. The Tribunal, by order dated 10.02.2009, though held that there was misconduct on the part of the applicant, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, reduced the punishment to that of reduction in time scale of pay by one stage to be spent on duty for a period of one year with effect on future increments and pension. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant filed W.P.No.449 of 2010 seeking to quash the impugned orders and direct the respondents to drop the disciplinary case against him in relation to the impugned proceedings and grant all service and monetary benefits to him; and the respondent-authorities filed W.P.No.1034 of 2010 seeking to quash the said order. The learned Government Pleader for Services appearing for the respondent-authorities contended that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought not to have undertaken the exercise and reduced the punishment imposed on the applicant by the disciplinary authority. In support of the said contention, he placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of DIRECTOR GENERAL, RPF vs. CH.SAIBABA[1] wherein it was held that normally, the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority should not be disturbed by the High Courts or the Tribunals, except in appropriate cases, that too after reaching a conclusion that the punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly disproportionate and after examining all the relevant factors including the nature of charges proved against the delinquent, the past conduct, penalty imposed earlier, the nature of duties assigned, having due regard to their sensitiveness, exactness expected of, and discipline required to be maintained and the department/establishment in which the concerned delinquent person works, and that where it is found that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate, the High Courts or the Tribunals may remit the cases to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration on the quantum of punishment. It is further contended that, in view of the grave charge levelled against the applicant, the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction and reduced the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority which is not permissible under law and that it is only for the disciplinary authority to reconsider the quantum of punishment. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that at the time of the incident there was a mob consisting of 200 factionists with deadly weapons, bombs and sticks; the applicant and another police constable were given only very low range rifles which are not sufficient to control the mob; the disciplinary authority did not consider the explanation submitted by the applicant without proper perspective; the possibilities of private witnesses who were all factionists and their tendering false evidence which cannot be ruled out was not taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority; and, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority on the applicant is grossly and shockingly disproportionate and, in the gravity of the matter; and the Tribunal ought to have allowed the application, instead of reducing the punishment. The charge framed against the applicant reads as follows: “Gross neglect of duty and reprehensible conduct in failure to take timely and preventive action while on faction bundobust duty at Alamkonda Village resulting in brutal murder of 4 persons at Alamkonda on 19.08.1990 and injuries to several others vide Cr.No.30/90 u/s.147, 148, 324, 307, 448, 427, 302 IPC and Sec.3 and 5 of P.S. Act of Krishnagiri P.S.” Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and following the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CH.SAIBABA (1 supra), we are of the considered opinion that the matter has to be remitted back to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration of the quantum of punishment, taking into consideration the factual aspects that there was a mob consisting of 200 factionists with deadly weapons, bombs and sticks; the applicant and another police constable were given only low range guns; his past service and his past conduct; the nature of his involvement in the charge; and, the incident had took place about 20 years back. Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.11638 of 2002 dated 10.02.2009, as well as the punishment imposed against the applicant by the disciplinary authority, are set aside directing the disciplinary authority to reconsider the quantum of punishment imposed on the applicant on sympathetic grounds. Both the writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. _________________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J. 9th March 2010 cvrk L.R. copy to be marked. [1] 2003 (4) SUPREME 313