IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.Nos.14617 of 2003 & 10038 of 2005 W.P.No.14617 of 2003 Between: S.Srinivasa Rao S/o. Rampathi Police Constable (Civil) (Under Dismissal) NO.1332 Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND Superintendent of Police Khammam District.Khammam .....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 to issue a writ order or direction especially one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records in OA.No.9002 of 2001 and order dt. 2- 5-2003 and quash the same and further declare that the order of the 2nd respondent made in proceedings No.2522/A6/2001/L0 NO.1811/2001 dated 26-11-2001 as illegal, arbitrary and vilative of Acts 14,16,21 and 311 of the constitution of India and further declare that petitioner is entitled to be continued in service and pass W.P.No.10038 of 2005 Between: B.David Gupa, s/o late Varahalu, Working as Police Constable, (Under orders of Dismissal), Chintoor P.S., Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Superintendent of Police, Khammam District, Khammam. .....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 to issue an order, direction especially one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to O.A.No.9055/2001 dated 02-05-2003 of Hon'ble A.P.Administrative Tribunal and quash the same and further declare that the proceedings issued in C.No.2522/A6/2001 D.O.No.1811/2001 dated 26-11-2001 is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory violative of Article 14, 16, 21 and 311 of the Constitution of India and further declare that petitioner is entitled to continue as Police Constable and pass such order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner in both W.Ps.:MR.M.SURENDER RAO Counsel for the Respondent in both W.Ps: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following common order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.Nos.14617 of 2003 & 10038 of 2005 COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Since the writ petitions are ﬁled against the common order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. Earlier the W.P.No.14617 of 2003 was allowed by order dated 9-3-2005 and the oﬃcial respondent ﬁled W.P.M.P.No.18640 of 2005 seeking review of the said order. The said review petition was allowed and the order passed in the writ petition was set aside. This is how W.P.No.14617 of 2003 is listed for hearing before us. W.P.No.10038 of 2005 is ﬁled by similarly situated police constable challenging the order of dismissal from service. The petitioners seek to challenge the common order passed in O.A.Nos.9002 and 9055 of 2001 dated 2.5.2003 on the ﬁle of A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, whereunder the Tribunal conﬁrmed the removal orders dated 26.11.2001 passed against the petitioners. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent, without conducting the departmental enquiry contemplated under A.P. Civil Services (Classiﬁcation, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short ‘the Rules’) passed orders dated 26.11.2001 dismissing the petitioners from service on the ground that they have indulged in smuggling of ganja. According to the petitioners, the removal orders were passed based on the report of the Circle Inspector, Chintur and the information gathered behind their back. It is further stated that neither charge sheet was issued nor any enquiry was conducted as per Rules. The respondent, without following the procedure contemplated under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and without supplying the documents sought for by the petitioners, straightaway passed the removal order by dispensing with the enquiry to be conducted in accordance with law. The case of the respondent is that the petitioners have been removed from service, on the basis of the preliminary enquiry report of the Circle Inspector of Police, Chintur, and after examining the entire material available on record and having been satisﬁed with the contents of the preliminary report, by invoking the provisions under Rule 25 of the Rules read with Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India and dispensing with the enquiry on the ground that it is not reasonably practicable to hold enquiry as per Rules. Further, the respondent authority had observed that the petitioners have been indulging in anti-social activities, which will adversely aﬀect the morale and discipline among the police oﬃcials and is harmful to the public safety and public order. Thus, the respondent had dismissed the petitioners from service by invoking special powers conferred on him, by dispensing with enquiry. Aggrieved thereby, petitioners preferred O.As. before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions, recorded a ﬁnding that the petitioners are indulging in smuggling of prohibited goods and their continuance in the department would be detrimental to the safety of the public and accordingly upheld the order of dismissal from service. Aggrieved thereby, the applicants filed the present writ petitions. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. The learned counsel for petitioners submits that in the order of dismissal, the misconduct alleged against the petitioners was to the eﬀect that they were involved in the illegal transportation of ganja from Chintoor to Delhi and in such situation, it cannot be said that the Department is precluded from conducting the enquiry or it is not practicable to hold enquiry before passing the orders of dismissal from service. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent submits that since it is not feasible to conduct the enquiry and that the witnesses would not come forward to tender evidence against the petitioners, who are police oﬃcials, the disciplinary authority has come to the bona ﬁde conclusion that it is not practicable to hold the enquiry. We have considered the contentions advanced by both the counsel. Admittedly, the petitioners were working as Constables in the Police Department at the relevant time and they were dismissed from service, by dispensing with the enquiry contemplated as per Rules. The only ground urged for dispensing with the enquiry is that the witnesses would not come forward to testify the facts for fear of repercussions and that the respondent stated that the enquiry against the police constable would lower the image of the police in the eyes of public. This cannot be a ground to dispense with the enquiry and an enquiry can be dispensed with only in exceptional circumstances, for which convincing reasons, have to be recorded in writing, by the disciplinary authority. We are of the considered opinion that the facts and circumstances of the case do not fall in the category of ‘rare case’ where the enquiry can be dispensed with. In fact, the allegations against the petitioners can be established by conducting enquiry especially when the prohibited items were allegedly seized from the petitioners, which would be a matter of record. Not conducting an enquiry in a case of this nature would amount to violation of provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India. Only in case where there is national security involved or it is practically impossible to conduct enquiry and there is suﬃcient material available on record, the enquiry can be dispensed with, but not in a case of this nature. The Tribunal has not considered as to whether there was any necessity for dispensing with the conducting of an enquiry in a case of this nature. In the above circumstances, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and direct the authorities to reinstate the petitioners forthwith along with full pay and allowances from the date of their termination till the date of reinstatement. However, the respondents are at liberty to conduct a fresh enquiry into the allegations made against the petitioners and pass appropriate orders as per law, after giving opportunity to both the parties. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 24.6.2008 DA THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.Nos.14617 of 2003 & 10038 of 2005 (Order of the Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) 24.6.2008