HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.1502 of 2003 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings issued vide Memo No.CE/O&M/KTPS/ADC/C5/D.No.1140/2002, dated 6.6.2002 on the file of the third respondent wherein the services of the petitioner were terminated, as confirmed in appeal by the 1st respondent vide Memo No. GM(A)/DS(E)/AS(DC)/227/D2/1999, dated 15.6.2002 and to quash the same as arbitrary and illegal. By order dated 24.4.2003, this Court directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service pending further orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent states that the said interim order was given effect to and the petitioner was reinstated into service and he is working as on today. It appears, the petitioner joined as Mazdoor in the respondent- Corporation. He was issued a show cause notice on 22.10.1999 calling upon him to explain as to why action should not be taken against him since he had adverse remarks and for suppressing the facts. The petitioner submitted his explanation. Having not satisfied with the same, without conducting any enquiry, the respondents have terminated his services by order dated 6.6.2002 holding that the petitioner was involved in excise offences in Crime Nos. 342 to 355/96 under Section 8(1) of A.P. Prohibition Act of Paloncha Town Police Station, as he was arrested in a drunken state. He was convicted for the said offence and imposed fine of Rs.500/- vide S.T.C. No. 1630/96. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent. However, the same was dismissed through order dated 15.7.2002. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. Admittedly, the charge against the petitioner was under Section 8(1) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, whereunder it was alleged that he was found in a drunken condition in public place. Therefore, he was arrested and on payment of Rs.500/- fine, he was let off. This is a crime, which arose outside the employment. This has nothing to do with the employment of the petitioner. The respondents could not have taken note of such a crime and could not have issued the very show cause notice calling upon him to submit an explanation as to why action should not be taken against him. The very action initiated by the respondents is arbitrary and illegal. Further the respondents have no authority under the law to undertake an enquiry and arrest the petitioner on the ground that the image of the organisation was tarnished and the petitioner suppressed the said facts before the respondents. Firstly, the charge itself is trivial in nature. The petitioner was arrested on the same day and he was even discharged on payment of fine. However, what prompted the respondents from conducting an enquiry into the matter is not known. May be, the petitioner did not inform the respondents as to his arrest in view of his conduct. That itself does not empower the respondents to take up moral policing on the petitioner and conduct enquiry into it. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed much reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in PAWAN KUMAR vs. STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER ([1]) and drawn the attention of this Court to paras 9 and 14 of the said judgment, which read thus. “9. In order to secure a conviction the provisions requires two particulars to be proved by the prosecution, i.e. (i) the offender has done any obscene act in any public place or has sung, recited or uttered any obscene songs or words in or near any public place; and (ii) has so caused annoyance to others. If the act complained of is not obscene, or is not done in any public place, or the song recited or uttered is not obscene or is not sung, received or uttered in or near any public place, or that it causes no annoyance to others, the offence is not committed. The measure of sentence of three months imposable thereunder suggests that such offence is triable summarily under Section 260 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it being not an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding two years. When the accused does not plead guilty, Section 264 of the Code of Criminal Procedure enjoins upon the Magistrate that he shall (i) record the substance of the evidence; and (ii) a judgment containing a brief statement of the reasons for the finding. Conversely put, when the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate may not be obliged to write a judgment containing a brief statement of the reasons, but the Magistrate is not absolved of the obligation to record the substance of the evidence. Otherwise, it would be difficult to conceive as to what could the accused have pleaded to. His plea of guilt is an admission to whatever factual data the prosecution lays before the Court about the commission of the offence. Pleading guilty by the accused to the violation of a provision of law is no plea at all, as he would have to be confronted with the substance of the allegation, in order to enter upon a plea, one way or the other. When the substance of the allegations is not put to the accused, his entering any kind of plea is no plea legally, due to the non- observance of such procedural requirement of utmost importance. 14. Before concluding this judgment we hereby draw attention of the Parliament to step in and perceive the large many cases which per law and public policy are tried summarily, involving thousands and thousands of people throughout the country appearing before summary Courts and paying small amounts of fine, more often than not, as a measure of plea-bargaining. Foremost among them being traffic, municipal and other petty offences under the Indian Penal Code, mostly committed by the young and/or the inexperienced. The cruel result of a conviction of that kind and a fine of payment of a paltry sum on plea- bargaining is the end of career, future or present, as the case may be, of that young and/or inexperienced person, putting a blast to his life and his dreams. Life is too precious to be staked over a petty incident like this. Immediate remedial measures are, therefore, necessary in raising the toleration limits with regard to petty offences especially when tried summarily. Provision need be made that punishment of fine up to a certain limit, say up to Rs. 2,000/- or so, on a summary/ordinary conviction shall not be treated as conviction at all for any purpose and all the more for entry into and retention in Government service. This can brook no delay, whatsoever." In view of the above and also taking the over all facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the respondents ought not to have initiated any action against the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the impugned order dated 6.6.2002 passed by the third respondent, as confirmed by the first respondent through order dated 15.7.2002 are liable to be set aside and they are accordingly set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner (since already reinstated) into service with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits, except back wages. However, the service between the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement shall be counted for the purpose of seniority and promotion etc. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. ________________ C.V. RAMULU,J DATE: 17th February, 2011 pnb [1] AIR 1996 SC 3300