THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR W.P.NO.28464 OF 2008 ORDER: ( Per GM,J) Questioning the order dated 27-11-2008 passed in O.A.No.2767 of 2007 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, the present writ petition is filed. The brief facts of the case are that 1st and 2nd respondents herein, who belong to the civil police of Chittoor District, have been deputed to the petitioner i.e., Superintendent of Police, Railways, Guntakal, Chittoor District. While they are on deputation to Railway Police, they have been implicated in a murder case and the charge memo was served on them on 11-09-2004. In that regard, they filed their explanations. Thereafter, Deputy Superintendent of Railway Police was appointed as an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges. On 13-6-2005, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report. Subsequently, they were repatriated to their parent department. Surprisingly, on 27-3-2007, the petitioner issued the orders dismissing the respondents from service. It is the case of the respondents that they were falsely implicated in Cr.No.25 of 2004 under Section 307 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC and after full-fledged trial, they were acquitted in the said criminal case. The plea of the respondents is that the petitioner has no jurisdiction to pass orders imposing major penalty of dismissal in accordance with Rule 30 of A.P.C.S. (CC& A) Rules, 1991. Challenging the dismissal order, the respondents approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal after elaborate consideration of the entire material placed before it set aside the dismissal order passed by the petitioner and directed the 3rd respondent herein to re-induct the respondents into service forthwith. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed by the Department. Learned Government Pleader for Services appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the Tribunal has committed an error in passing the impugned order. He further contends that under Rule 16 of the APCS (CC & A) Rules, the petitioner is empowered to pass orders as the respondents were transferred to the Railways wing and while working in the Railways, they were involved in a murder case and as a disciplinary measure, the petitioner has rightly passed the dismissal order imposing punishment of dismissal from service. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently contended the petitioner has no jurisdiction to pass orders imposing a major penalty of dismissal in accordance with Rule 30 of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991, which reads as under: Rule 30. Provisions regarding officers lent to Government of India, etc: (1) Where the services of a Government servant are lent by one department to another department or to the Government of India or the Government of another state (hereinafter in this rule referred to as “the borrowing authority”), the borrowing authority for the purpose of placing such Government servant under suspension and of the disciplinary authority for the purpose of conducting a disciplinary proceedings against him. Provided that the borrowing authority shall forth with inform the authority which lent the services of the Government servant (herein in this rule referred to as “lending authority”) of the circumstances leading to the order of suspension of such Government servant or the commencement of the disciplinary proceedings as the case may be. (2) In the light of the findings in the disciplinary proceeding conducted against the Government servant: (i) If the borrowing authority is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (v) of Rule 9 or in Rule 10, should be imposed on the Government servant, it may make such orders as it deem necessary. (ii) If the borrowing authority is of the opinion that the penalty specified in clause (vi) of Rule 9 should be imposed on Government Servant, it may pass such orders as it may deem necessary, duly following the procedure prescribed in Rule 20. Provided that the borrowing authority shall inform the lending authority which lent the services of the Government servant the circumstances leading to the imposition of the penalty specified in clause (vi) of Rule 9: Provided further that if the borrowing authority is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (vii) to (x) of Rule 9 should be imposed on such Government servant, it shall replace his services at the disposal of the lending authority and transmit to it the proceedings of the enquiry and thereupon the lending authority may, if it is disciplinary authority, pass such orders thereon as it may deem necessary or if it is not disciplinary authority, submit the case to the disciplinary authority which shall pass such orders on the case as it may deem necessary (subs. By.G.O.Ms.20, G.A.D, 20-1-2000) (3)……… (4)(i) Where the borrowing authority is a Company or Corporation or Organization or local or other authority, such borrowing authority may, subject to such specific conditions or limitations, if any, that may be made in the terms of deputation, suspend or impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (1) of Rule 10 on the Government Servant, duly following the procedure prescribed in CCA Rules: Provided that the borrowing authority shall intimate the fact of placing the Government servant under suspension or imposing on him/her the penalty as the case may be to the lending authority: Provided further that if the borrowing authority is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (vii) to (x) of Rule 9 should be imposed on the Government servant, it shall replace his services at the disposal of the lending authority and transmit to it the proceedings of the enquiry and thereupon, the lending authority may, if it is disciplinary authority, pass such orders thereon as it may deem necessary or if it is not disciplinary authority, submit the case to the disciplinary authority which shall pass such orders on the case as it may deem necessary.) Heard the learned counsel on either side. A perusal of the record goes to show that originally the respondents belong to the department of civil police and subsequently, they were transferred to the wing of Railways. While so, as the respondents allegedly involved in a criminal case and as a disciplinary measure, the respondents were dismissed from service. The contention of the respondents is that the petitioner is not the competent authority to pass the order of removal from service. At this juncture, it is relevant to reproduce the first proviso to sub-Rule (1) of Rule 16 of the APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 (for short ‘Rules’), which reads as under: “Provided that the authority which may impose any of the penalties on a member of the APP Subordinate Service or the A.P. Spl. Armed Police Service or the DSSP or ACSP in the category-2 and the Inspector of Police in Category-4 of the A.P. Police service in cases not involving promotion or appointment by transfer, shall be the competent authority having jurisdiction over such member at the time of commission of such act or omission, as the case may be or any authority to which it is subordinate” It is submitted that the Railway Police, CID, Intelligence and Police, Training Colleges are the specialized branches of the Police Department and they are part and parcel of the Police Department as these are also functioning under the direct administrative and disciplinary control of the Director General of Police. The Police personnel from the earmarked district are transferred to these Specialized Branches of the Police Department to work on tenure basis. In view of the above proviso, the SsRP are the competent authority to impose any penalties including major ones on the Police personnel, if the commission of any act takes place during the period they actually discharged their duties in the Railway Police.” The above rules clearly postulate that Railway Police is the specialized branch of the Police Department and they are part and parcel of the Police Department and are competent authority to impose any penalties including major ones on the Police personnel, if the commission of any act takes place during the period they actually discharged their duties in the Railway Police. Hence, it cannot be said that the Railway Police is not the competent authority to pass the order of dismissal from service. The Tribunal has committed jurisdictional error in allowing the claim of the respondents. Hence, the order passed by the Tribunal in reinstating the respondents into service is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _________________ K.G.SHANKAR,J Rkk Dated: 7--2-2011