IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NOs: 28090 and 23785 of 2008 WRIT PETITION NO : 28090 of 2008 Between: NO.871222689, Head Constable(General Duty) S.Balaguru, S/o. Seeni Reddy, Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force, Jawahar Nagar, Hakimpet, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND Central Reserve Police Force, Rep.by its Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force, Jawahar Nagar, Hakimpet, Ranga Reddy District .....RESPONDENT WRIT PETITION NO : 23785 of 2008 Between: S. Balaguru (under Suspension) S/o. Seeni Reddy R/o. Addl. Deputy Inspector - General of Police Group Centre Central Reserve Police Force, Jawahar Nagar, Hakimpet, Ranga Reddy. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Central Reserve Police Force Rep. by its Inspector - General of Police Southern Sector, Gayatri Hills, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. 2 Central Reserve Police Force Rep. by its Dy. Inspector - General of Police, Ranga Reddy Range, Jawahar Nagar, Hakimpet, Ranga Reddy. 3 Central Reserve Police Force Rep.by its Addl.Dy. Inspector- General of Police Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force, Jawahar Nagar, Hakimpet, Ranga Reddy. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.SATYAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.S.S.VARMA (Additional Central Government Standing Counsel) The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: Since these two writ petitions are interconnected and the parties are common, they are heard and being disposed of by the common order. Heard Sri S.Satyam Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S.S.Varma, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel. The petitioner is working as Head Constable (General Duty) and at the relevant time, he was working as Guard Commander in the Main Group of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Ranga Reddy. By order dated 08-09-2008, the petitioner was placed under suspension, on the ground that disciplinary proceedings against him are contemplated/pending. Questioning this order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.23785 of 2008. This Court by order dated 04-11-2008, granted interim suspension of the said suspension order. It is admitted that the petitioner is continuing in pursuance of the said order. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioner made application dated 26-11-2008, seeking permission to take voluntary retirement. The said request was rejected by order dated 29-11-2008 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, CRPF, on the ground that disciplinary proceedings are pending against the petitioner. This order is questioned in W.P.No.28090 of 2008. Insofar as the suspension of the petitioner is concerned, in the counter-affidavit filed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, in W.P.No.28090 of 2008, it is inter alia, mentioned that the petitioner failed to react appropriately/pacify the crowd comprising the wives and students of separated families at Bus Stop in front of CG, CRPF, RRY, Main Gate No.2, which led to beating up of driver and lady conductor of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation of City Bus Route No.211 M by the wives of CRPF and students of separated families. It is further stated that a preliminary enquiry was held and a report was submitted to the disciplinary authority vide proceedings dated 07-08- 2008. It is further stated that the case was under consideration for either initiating a departmental enquiry or disposing of through “orderly room” by the disciplinary authority. As regards the petitioner’s request for permitting him to take voluntary retirement, the respondents reiterated in the counter-affidavit filed in W.P.No.28090 of 2008 that since the decision on the initiation of disciplinary proceedings is pending, his request cannot be accepted. Sri S.Satyam Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, assailed both these orders, on the ground that while there was no warrant for the petitioner’s suspension in the first place, the rejection of his request for voluntary retirement on the ground of contemplation of disciplinary proceedings is not proper and legal. The learned counsel relied upon the guidelines, for acceptance of voluntary retirement, framed by the Government of India and published in the Swamy’s “Pension Compilation” 16th Edition, which read as under- “Guidelines for acceptance of notice- A notice of voluntary retirement given after completion of twenty years’ qualifying service will require acceptance by the appointing authority if the date of retirement on the expiry of the notice would be earlier than the date on which the Government servant concerned could have retired voluntarily under the existing rules applicable to him. [e.g., FR 56 (k), Rule 48 of the Pension Rules, Article 459 (i) of CSRs or any other similar rule]. Such acceptance may be generally given in all cases except those (a) in which disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated against the Government servant concerned for the imposition of a major penalty and the disciplinary authority, having regard to the circumstances of the case, is of the view that the imposition of the penalty of removal or dismissal from service would be warranted in the case.” With regard to the order of suspension, in my considered view, the nature of allegation does not appear to be so serious as to warrant petitioner’s immediate suspension. At any rate, the said order of suspension was suspended by this Court as far back as 04-11-2008, and the petitioner is being continued by virtue of the said order. Therefore, it is appropriate that the petitioner is allowed to continue in service until a decision is taken by the respondents either to initiate disciplinary proceedings or dispose of the issue through “orderly room”. As regards the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement, as per the Government of India’s guidelines referred to above, it is only in the event of there being a likelihood of a Government servant suffering a major penalty of removal or dismissal from service, that a request for voluntary retirement will be deferred. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the very nature of the allegation against the petitioner and the stand taken by the respondents that so far, they have not decided as to whether departmental enquiry should be initiated or matter should be disposed of through “orderly room”, there is no likelihood of imposing major penalty on the petitioner and there is no justification for the respondents in rejecting the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings, in my considered view, this Court cannot go into such issues and it is for the respondents who have to ultimately take a decision on the issue of initiation of disciplinary proceedings or to close the matter through “orderly room”. On the facts of this case, I find it appropriate to dispose of these two writ petitions with the following directions. (1) The respondents shall continue the petitioner in service until the allegations against him are properly disposed of. (2) The respondents shall take a decision on the initiation of disciplinary proceedings or disposal of the allegations through “orderly room”, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Depending upon the decision so taken, the issue shall be decided either through disciplinary proceedings or “orderly room”, within a period of six (6) weeks thereafter. Within a period of four (4) weeks of disposal of the case, the respondents shall take a decision and pass an appropriate order on the petitioner’s request for voluntary retirement, keeping in view the above mentioned Government of India’s Guidelines. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 15th April, 2009 vrn Note: Issue CC in one week.