* THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN + W.P.No.7093 OF 2001 % Dated 23 -12-2010 # S.Anil Kumar …. Petitioner Vs. $ The Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, Himayatnagar, Hyderabvad and another …. Respondents ! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P. Balakrishna Murthy ^ Counsel for the Respondent: G.P. for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development <GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred [1] 2009(5) ALT 350( DB) 2 (1992) 4 SCC 15 3 (1996) 11 SCC 606 4 (1988) 3 SCC 467 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITIN No.7093 of 2001 ORDER: Shielding employees, who are alleged to have committed grave and serious offences such as tampering with official documents and falsification of government records, has taken a heavy toll on the system of governance in the State. Let alone initiating criminal proceedings against them, such employees are often showered with the munificence of promotion to higher posts resulting in the lowering of morale amongst those employees who are honest and sincere, and helplessness and frustration among the people at large. This case, as we shall presently see, is but yet another glaring instance of an employee who was, prima facie, found guilty of falsification of government records and tampering with official documents, on the basis of the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, not only being protected from criminal prosecution, but also being rewarded with a promotion to a higher post. In this Writ Petition the petitioner seeks a declaration that the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction, authority or power to initiate criminal proceedings against him after a lapse of 15 years, and after withdrawal of the earlier police complaint in the year 1986 on the same allegations; and to set aside the Memo No.23931/Estt.VI/A2/2K1 dated 19.01.2001 issued by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner, hitherto a Superintendent in the office of the Commissioner, Panchayatraj, was placed under suspension vide proceedings dated 10.10.1985 on the allegation of falsification and tampering of official documents. The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj also lodged a complaint with the Saifabad police station. The petitioner filed W.P. No.4641/86 questioning the order of suspension. He was later reinstated into service, and was paid full emoluments for the period of suspension. In the memo dated 05.03.1986 the 2nd respondent observed that the Government had decided to withdraw the police complaint lodged by the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj against the petitioner, and that the departmental enquiry should be expedited. The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj vide letter dated 11.03.1986, informed the Station House Officer, Saifabad Police Station that, in view of the memo issued by the 2nd respondent directing withdrawal of the complaint, the complaint petition filed against the petitioner was being withdrawn. Thereafter a charge memo was issued to the petitioner, and an enquiry officer was appointed. The enquiry officer submitted his report based on which proceedings dated 25.02.1995 were issued by the 1st respondent observing that the petitioner should not in future, whether for personal gain or otherwise, indulge in such fraudulent activities and indiscretions, and his case for promotion should be withheld for a period of three years from the date of the order. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a review petition to the 1st respondent requesting that it be treated as an appeal and be forwarded to the 2nd respondent. G.O.Rt. No.866, dated 28.06.1996 was issued by the 2nd respondent allowing the petition to the limited extent that the petitioner’s claim for promotion to the post of District Panchayat Officer be considered against roster No.27 in Multi Zone-II with the stipulation that there should not be any claim for retrospective promotion. Thereafter, vide G.O.Ms. No.287 dated 30.07.1987, the petitioner was promoted as District Panchayat Officer and was transferred to Rangareddy District, and later to Mahaboobnagar District. While matters stood thus, the 2nd respondent issued memo dated 19.01.2001 requesting the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioner on charges of indulging in criminal acts and falsification of Government records with criminal intention. The Commissioner was requested to furnish the action taken report to the Government. It is this memo of the 2nd respondent dated 19.01.2001 which is under challenge in this writ petition on the ground that as the earlier police complaint, on the same allegations, was withdrawn in the year 1986 by the Government, it could not once again be reopened, and criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner; no reasons were assigned as to why, and under what circumstances, the impugned action was being taken; every administrative action should be fair, reasonable and it could not be a matter of the whims and fancies of a particular individual; once the State Government had allowed the petitioner’s appeal against the orders of the 1st respondent, it must be held that the State Government did not agree with the findings recorded by the 1st respondent; the allegations levelled against the petitioner, which were subject matter of the earlier complaint, must be deemed to have no factual foundation; withdrawal of the police complaint, through memorandum dated 05.03.1986, had become final and did not empower the 2nd respondent to re-trace or cancel the same by the subsequent memo dated 19.01.2001; even if such a power is available, it must be exercised within a reasonable period, and not after a lapse of fifteen years; no inherent power was available to the 2nd respondent, under any law, to review its own action, and the impugned proceedings were invalid; the earlier police complaint was withdrawn on 05.03.1986 without reserving any right for future review; reference in the impugned memo to the opinion of the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory was not a new and sudden development, as the opinion was rendered on 25.04.1986 nearly fifteen years ago; the said report had been considered in the departmental enquiry, and did not warrant issuance of the impugned memo by the 2nd respondent; and initiation of criminal proceedings after a lapse of fifteen years, that too in the light of the earlier withdrawal of the police complaint by the State Government, showed lack of bonafides. Reliance is placed on a Division bench judgment of this Court in Shaik Mohd. Hussain v. A.P. State Wakf Board rep., by its Chief Executive Officer, Hyderabad[1]. From the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 10.10.1985 it is evident that the petitioner had, prima facie, indulged in falsification and tampering of official documents. While a complaint was lodged against the petitioner with the police earlier on 19.10.1985 the 2nd respondent, in his proceedings dated 5.3.1986, observed that, since a disciplinary enquiry was initiated, a charge sheet was issued and an enquiry officer appointed, the Government had decided to withdraw the police complaint lodged by the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj, and to expedite the departmental enquiry. It is only, as a consequence thereof, that the 1st respondent, by his letter dated 11.3.1986, withdrew the police complaint lodged against the petitioner. The Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, in his letter addressed the 2nd respondent dated 25.4.1986, opined that the writings marked in S.1 to S.9 were written by the very same person who had written on Q.1, and there was a chemical erasure in the writings marked Q.1. In his order dated 25.2.1995 the 1st respondent relied on the report of the Assistant Director of Forensic Science Laboratory dated 25.4.1986 to hold that the irregularities alleged against the petitioner, of having forged the signature in a document and in erasing and re-writing the date of birth in the service register of another employee, were held established; and that the petitioner deserved imposition of punishment of dismissal from service. However taking a lenient view, more so as he was under suspension for a long time and he was also denied promotion, and with the hope that he would not indulge in such acts in future for personal gain, the petitioner was imposed the punishment of withholding of promotion for three years from the date of the order. Even in G.O.Ms. No.866 dated 28.6.1996, the Government did not absolve the petitioner of the charges levelled against him. It merely held that the petitioner’s case for promotion, to the post of District Panchayat Officer, should be considered against roster No.27 in multi-zone-II with the stipulation that he should not make any claim for retrospective promotion. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted in the year 1997 as the District Panchayat Officer. After relying on the earlier proceedings of the Commissioner, Panchayat Raj dated 10.10.1985, the report of the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory dated 25.4.1986, and the petitioner’s appeal dated 7.6.1985, the 2nd respondent, in his memo dated 19.1.2001, observed that the Government had decided to review the matter and to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioner as the allegations levelled against him of falsification of government records with criminal intention were held established as per the opinion given by the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory. The 1st respondent was requested to institute criminal proceedings against the petitioner for having indulged in criminal acts, and falsification of government records with criminal intention. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature. It defies comprehension as to how an employee, who is alleged to have indulged in falsification of government records and to have tampered with official documents, could have been continued in service, much less promoted to a higher post; and why criminal proceedings sought to be initiated against him by the 1st respondent was directed to be withdrawn by the Government. The earlier action of the government, in directing withdrawal of the criminal complaint lodged against such a Government servant, is ex-facie illegal and must be held to be null and void. Merely because the Government had issued such a void and illegal order earlier, does not bar them from initiating criminal proceedings later, more so as the charges levelled against the petitioner are grave and serious and are, prima facie, supported by the written expert opinion of the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory. In the present case, while the petitioner was sought to be shielded by the Government for 16 years, the interim order passed by this court on 16.4.2001 has resulted in no action being taken against the petitioner for nearly a decade thereafter. Investigation into an offence is a statutory function of the police, and this court would not be justified, without compelling and justifiable reason, in interfering with the investigation. (Jayant Vitamins Ltd. v. Chaitanyakumar[2]). The petitioner’s reliance on the judgment of the Division bench of this Court in Shaik Mohd Hussain1 is misplaced. In the said case, the Division Bench faulted successive disciplinary enquiries, and denial of subsistence allowance during the suspension period of an employee. In the present case, it is the complaint filed earlier with the police which was withdrawn. No provision which bars filing of another complaint to the police requiring them to investigate into such serious offences of falsification of government records, and tampering of official documents, has been brought to the notice of this Court. The fact that the petitioner was held guilty of the charges in the departmental enquiry, and the report of the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory supports the allegations levelled against him, also go to show that the subsequent memo, whereby the 1st respondent was directed to lodge a criminal complaint, is justified. There is no justification for quashing the memo, whereby criminal proceedings are again sought to be initiated, simply on the ground of delay as the offences are serious in nature and, normally, a strict view is to be taken. (A.A. Mulla v. State of Maharashtra[3]; V.K. Agarwal, Asstt. Collector of Customs v. Vasantraj Bhagwanji Bhatia[4]). I see no reason to interfere with the order impugned in this writ petition. The 1st respondent shall, at the earliest and, in any event, not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, act in accordance with the impugned memo of the 2nd respondent dated 19.1.2001, and initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioner. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed with costs quantified as Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only). ________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date: .12.2010 Note: L.R. copy to be marked B/o Asp [1] 2009(5) ALT 350( DB) [2] (1992) 4 SCC 15 [3] (1996) 11 SCC 606 [4] (1988) 3 SCC 467