IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION NO :265 of 2003 DATED:20.9.2010 Between: The Superintendent of Police, Cuddapah & others .....PETITIONERS AND Syed Allah Bakash .....RESPONDENT This Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION NO :265 of 2003 ORDER: (Per the Honourable Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) The writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the order passed in O.A.No:4637 of 2000 on 22.7.2002 by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal. The respondent herein is the applicant. For the sake of convenience the status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the O.A. The applicant has filed O.A.4637 of 2000 before the Tribunal questioning the proceedings C.No:75/PR/1999, dated 10.7.2000 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Cuddapah and its connected proceedings D.O.No:237/2000, C.No:625/A5/2000, dated 14.7.2000 issued by the Superintendent of Railways, Guntakal as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the applicant before the Tribunal that while he was working at Kondapuram Police Station during the year 1992, he fell sick on 28.11.1992 and he reported the same and continued to avail Medical leave upto 26.10.1993 in piece-meal and his subsequent request for medical leave was refused and in the meanwhile, a charge sheet was laid in Crime No.39 of 1993 against him under Section 420 IPC and immediately, he appeared before the Superintendent of Police, Cuddapah and requested to post him at Taluk police station to fulfill the conditions of bail and accordingly, he was issued orders. While the case was pending disposal, the applicant was taken to duty with effect from 6.1.1996 and ever since, he was working in the said post and he was acquitted in the said criminal case. Further, it is the case of the applicant that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kondapuram got him implicated in Crime No.6 of 1994 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307, 324, and 448 IPC read with Section 149 IPC but he was acquitted in the said crime. The applicant was permitted to join duty on 6.1.1996 and deputed to the control of the 2nd respondent from 22.11.1996. While so, some unknown persons published a pamphlet against the then Superintendent of Police, Railways, Guntakal on 6.8.1998, describing as if it was published by the applicant. On that, the 2nd respondent prevailed over the 1st respondent to somehow to take departmental action against him and hence, the impugned disciplinary proceedings were initiated. The Tribunal having observed that the impugned punishment of dismissal from service is not warranted and it is more so, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant belatedly i.e., six years after the alleged irregularity and when the 1st respondent issued posting orders in the year 1996 to the applicant nothing is mentioned about the likelihood of the disciplinary proceedings against him, directed the 1st respondent to issue posting orders to the applicant while making it clear that the applicant is not entitled for the back wages, but he is entitled for all service benefits. Having aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed by the authorities. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services I and the learned Counsel for the respondent herein. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader for Services I that the delay in departmental proceedings after issuance of charge memo was due to administrative reasons as well as non-co-operation of the applicant, but not due to issuance of pamphlet against the 2nd petitioner herein. It is further submitted that non availability of the applicant during the period from 27.10.1993 to 9.3.1994 is the reason for non service of desertion order and the applicant was involved in a criminal case vide Cr.No:35 of 1993 under section 420 I.P.C during the period of unauthorized absence and that during the pendency of the O.A, the applicant preferred the statutory appeal and the same was rejected by the appellate authority by proceedings C.No:70/C2/appeal/2002 dated 15.2.2002 of the Dy. Inspector of Police, Kurnool Range, Kurnool and therefore, the applicant should have challenged the same by way of filing O.A. It is further submitted that inspite of bringing the said facts to the notice of the Tribunal, the O.A was allowed on mere surmises and findings. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was one of the accused in Cr.Nos:35 of 1993 and 6 of 1994 and was attending the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jammalamadugu and therefore, the question that whereabouts of the applicant were not known, does not arise. It is further submitted that some unknown person published a pamphlet against the then Superintendent of Police, Railways, Guntakal on 6.8.1998 describing it as it was published by the applicant and on that, the 2nd writ petitioner prevailed over the 1st writ petitioner resulting initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. Apart from that, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant belatedly i.e., after a lapse of six years. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal does not warrant any interference by this Court. The fact that remains undisputed is that there was a delay of six years in conducting the departmental enquiry against the applicant. The order impugned goes to show that the desertion period of the applicant was treated as “Leave without pay”. If really, the applicant were the deserter, it is not known as to how the said desertion period of the applicant was shown as “Leave without pay” and as to how, it would substantiate the charge as to the unauthorized absence. It is also borne on record that the applicant was involved in two criminal cases i.e., Cr.No:35 of 1993 and C.C.20 of 1996 and he used to attend the Courts where those cases are pending. If that being the case, it is not known as to how it can be said that the whereabouts of the applicant are not known as rightly observed by the Tribunal. The issuance of pamphlet and the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings simultaneously, lead to draw an adverse inference against the authorities in initiating the disciplinary proceedings belatedly i.e., after a lapse of six years as rightly observed by the Tribunal. In this background of the matter, We feel that the order of the Tribunal is just and proper and it does not require any interference by this Court. Hence, this writ petition is devoid or merits and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _________________________ Justice G.V. Seethapathy Date:20.9.2010 nn THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION NO :265 of 2003 (Order of the Division Bench delivered by Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) DATED:20.9.2010