THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.17924 of 1999 Dated: 13.07.2010 Between: S. Babu Rao. .. Petitioner And Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, C.R.P.F. Chandraangutta And another. .. Respondents ORDER: According to the petitioner, who was appointed as a constable in C.R.P.F. in the year 1995, while he along with two of his colleagues was travelling in a train from Neemuch in Madhya Pradesh, the place where he was undergoing training, to Hyderabad and when the train reached Begumpet Railway station on 29.01.1996, the Excise officials conducted check and found certain liquor bottles from the possession of his colleagues and, thereby, his colleagues were detained, whereas he was allowed to continue his journey, as nothing was found from his possession. But however, when he alighted the train at Secunderabad Railway Station, on his realizing that his ticket, which was the common ticket of himself and his colleagues, was retained with his colleagues, he went to Begumpet Railway Station for the purpose of collecting the ticket from them, but surprisingly the Excise officials let off his colleagues and apprehended him and registered a case against him in Crime No.209/95-96, under Section 8(b) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’). While so, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the allegation of committing an act of misconduct which led in his arrest on 29.01.1996 by the Excise Officials, and he was placed under suspension by order dated 02.02.1996. After conducting a detailed enquiry, he was ultimately removed from service through order dated 05.05.1997 of the 2nd respondent-Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, C.R.P.F., Hyderabad. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed appeal before the 1st respondent-Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, C.R.P.F., Hyderabad, and the same was dismissed through order dated 26.11.1997. The grievance of the petitioner is that the First Information report registered against him by the Excise officials indicates the date of incident as 31.01.1996 and the place of incident as Moosapet Bus Stand, Ranga Reddy District, but in the charges leveled against him, the date of incident is stated as 29.01.1996 and the place of occurrence is mentioned as Begumpet Railway Station, and this variation itself shows that the charges leveled against him are based on false complaint and the Prohibition & Excise officials have falsely implicated him in a criminal case. The petitioner complains that even there is no witness who supported the allegation leveled against him, but the enquiry officer, without looking into the evidence of the witnesses, came to a conclusion that the charges are proved, and the disciplinary authority ultimately imposed the punishment of removal from service by order dated 05.05.1997, which was confirmed by the appellate authority in a mechanical manner. Hence, this writ petition is filed seeking appropriate directions. The 2nd respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that on coming to know about the arrest of the petitioner on 29.01.1996, the petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 29.01.1996 i.e., from the date of his detention in judicial custody, and he was issued with memorandum of charges on 12.10.1996 and he pleaded guilty of the charges leveled against him. It is also stated that during the course of departmental enquiry, all the witnesses have stated that the petitioner was arrested by excise officials for allegedly carrying the liquor bottles in violation of the provisions of the Act. It is further stated that during the course of departmental enquiry, the petitioner never raised any objections as to questioning him in English by the Enquiry Officer, and there is no provision in the Act or instructions to conduct the departmental enquiry in the regional language or the mother tongue, as per the desire of the delinquent. On 17.04.2009, this Court ordered W.P.M.P.No.8863 of 2009, filed by the petitioner seeking to permit him to file additional affidavit along with order dated 18.09.2000 passed by the Prohibition and Excise Lok Adalath. In the additional affidavit filed along with a copy of the order dated 18.09.2000 passed by the Prohibition and Excise Lok Adalath, it is stated by the petitioner that in the Prohibition and Excise Lok Adalath held on 18.09.2000, as per his willingness for compounding of the offence, he was acquitted of the charge in the criminal case, which arose out of Crime No.209/95-96 of Prohibition & Excise Station, Balanagar, and by this, the very basis of the charge in the departmental enquiry is taken away. It is also stated that his acquittal in the criminal case leads to a conclusion that the charge leveled against him is not grave so as to attract the punishment of removal from service. Denying the allegations made by the petitioner in the additional affidavit filed by him, the 2nd respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit to the additional affidavit, wherein it is stated that as the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case was on the basis of compounding of the offence by paying some amount, it is not acquittal on merits. It is also stated that the charges leveled in both the criminal case and the departmental proceedings are different and distinct from each other, as the objective of departmental enquiry instituted by the department is to prove the misconduct of the Government servant, whereas the objective of criminal proceedings is to punish the person for commission of a criminal offence. It is further stated that considering the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner, he was imposed with the punishment of removal from service by the disciplinary authority, and, therefore, the order dated 18.09.2000 passed by the Prohibition & Excise Lok Adalath is no way helpful to the petitioner in the departmental proceedings initiated against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not involved in the crime registered against him, however he got the criminal case compounded in order to avoid inconvenience of attending the Court proceedings on every date of hearing and also with a fond hope that a lenient view would be taken against him in the departmental proceedings, which was initiated against him on the basis of his arrest in the criminal case. Learned counsel submits that there is variation with regard to the date and place of occurrence in the First Information Report and the charges leveled against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. Learned counsel also submits that the respondents have no authority to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner in view of his arrest in a crime, which arose outside the employment. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order of punishment of removal from service passed by the 2nd respondent. He submits that the petitioner being a member of the disciplined forces ought not to have involved in the crime, which has been registered against him by the excise officials. Even the petitioner himself has admitted his guilt before the enquiry officer, and so, there is no other option for him except to impose the punishment of removal from service. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. In fact, at the relevant point of time, there was prohibition in the State of Andhra Pradesh for carrying liquor without valid permit, but however it is only for a short period and was subsequently lifted. According to the petitioner, even though no liquor bottles were found from his possession, the excise officials arrested him, whereas his colleagues, who were in actual possession of liquor bottles, were let off. It is his further case that since the offence in the criminal case registered against him is trivial in nature, he got the same compounded and, thereby, he was acquitted in the criminal case, by which a conclusion can be drawn that the charge leveled against him in the departmental proceedings, which was initiated against him basing on his arrest in the criminal case, is not grave so as to attract the punishment of removal from service. Even if the allegation of carrying four Indian made liquor bottles without valid permit is assumed to be proved, that does not warrant the punishment of removal from service, as the same is not grave in nature and it arose outside the employment. Thus, in these circumstances, more particularly when the punishment imposed is disproportionate to that of the alleged misconduct, the matter requires to be remanded to the disciplinary authority for re-consideration, but since more than 13 years elapsed from the date of imposing the punishment of removal from service, instead of remanding the matter for re-consideration, I am of the considered opinion that the litigation can be given a quietus here itself by modifying the impugned order dated 05.05.1997 passed by the 2nd respondent as under: “The punishment of removal from service imposed on the petitioner is modified to that of the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect, and the petitioner shall be reinstated into service with continuity of service, but without backwages and attendant benefits.” With the above modification, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 13.07.2010 v v