IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13138 of 1999 Between: K.Sudhakar (P.C.No.556), S/o. K.Subbanna, Nellore, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Guntur Range, Guntur, Guntur District. 2 The Superintendent of Police, Nellore, Nellore District. 3 The Registrar, A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS 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, order or direction particularly on in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in awarding the major punishment of Rank in reduction permanently, in spite of deletion of specific charge by the Enquiry Officer is arbitrary, unjust and to set aside the impugned orders passed by the 2nd Respondent in C.No.139/PR/89, dated: 25-01-1993, as well as the orders of the 1st respondent passed in C.No. 37/Appl./93, Dated: 09-06-1993. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.K.MURALIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : O R D E R : (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah): This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in awarding the major punishment of reduction in rank permanently, in spite of deletion of specific charge by the Enquiry Officer, as arbitrary, unjust, and to set aside the order passed by respondent No.2 in C.No.139/PR/89, dated 25.01.1993, as well as the order of respondent No.1, passed in C.No.37/Appl./93, dated 09.06.1993. When the matter was taken up on 04.06.2009, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, it was directed to be posted on 08.06.2009, under the caption “for dismissal”. On 08.06.2009, learned counsel for petitioner represented that the petitioner had died and he sought time to get the legal representatives of the petitioner on record. Even after granting two adjournments, the learned counsel could not bring on record, the legal representatives of the petitioner, and the learned counsel reported that the petitioner had died more than four years back. However, we have permitted the learned counsel to advance arguments on merits. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that while working as Head Constable in Udayagiri Police Station, Nellore District, the petitioner was placed under suspension on the allegations that a criminal case was registered against him for the offences under Sections 354 and 448 IPC, and that he also absented from duties without obtaining prior permission, or sanctioned leave, from 27.01.1989 to 07.02.1989. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kavali, was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who framed two charges against the petitioner. The first charge was that the petitioner trespassed into the house of one Jaibunnisa on 27.01.1989 at about 15.00 hours, and outraged her modesty, and the second charge was that he absented from duties, without obtaining prior permission or leave, from 27.01.1989 to 07.02.1989. Subsequently, the criminal case registered against the petitioner, which was numbered as C.C.No.12 of 1989 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Athmakur, ended in acquittal, by a judgment, dated 12.09.1989. Thereafter, on the representation of the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer has dropped the first charge and proceeded against the petitioner only on the second charge. After completion of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report, dated 04.07.1990, holding that the charge of absence from duty without leave or permission from 27.01.1989 to 07.02.1989 is proved against the petitioner. Based on the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, respondent No.2-Superintendent of Police, Nellore District, by his order, dated 25.01.1993, imposed on the petitioner, the punishment of reduction in rank permanently and treated the period of suspension as ‘not on duty’. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before respondent No.1-Deputy Inspector General of Police, Guntur, which was also rejected by an order, dated 09.06.2003. Questioning these two orders, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. In fact, prior to the filing of this writ petition, the petitioner has also filed O.A.No.6352 of 1993 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, and the Tribunal, by an order dated 16.04.1999, has dismissed the O.A., holding that the petitioner, being a member of the disciplined police force, absconded himself from duty without prior permission or intimation. The Tribunal has also declined to interfere with the punishment imposed on the petitioner by relying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Paramananda[1], wherein it was held that when penalty was imposed on the delinquent-employee by the competent authority, the Tribunal cannot interfere with it on the ground that it is not commensurate with the delinquency of the employee. However, the petitioner has not filed any Writ of Certiorari, calling for records from the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.6352 of 1993, and without questioning the said order of the Tribunal, he filed the present writ petition, seeking for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondents 1 and 2 in passing the orders impugned, as arbitrary and unjust. On merits of the case also, we are of the opinion that the fact of unauthorized absence by the petitioner, without prior permission or leave, has been established in the enquiry held against him, and the defence of the petitioner that he could not attend to duty as he took treatment in a private hospital at Nellore, was rightly rejected by respondent No.2, holding that the petitioner obtained medical certificate from a private hospital only to cover-up his unauthorized absence, and to avoid arrest by the Police in the criminal case. It was also held by respondent No.2 that, had the petitioner been really sick, there was no need for him to go to Nellore for treatment and he would have obtained sick passport in Udayagiri Police Station for taking treatment and would have taken treatment in Udayagiri itself. The said finding of respondent No.2 was confirmed by respondent No.1 in the appeal preferred by the petitioner. We do not find any ground to interfere with the above said findings of respondent No.2, as rightly confirmed by respondent No.1. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ V. ESWARAIAH,J Dated 13th July, 2009 ____________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY,J vrn [1] AIR 1989 Supreme Court 1185