HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION No.28 OF 2003 ORDER: (Per the Honourable Sri Justice G.V. Seethapathy) This Writ Petition is filed against the order dated 12-12-2002 in O.A. No.1033 of 2001 dated 12-12-2002 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. The said application is filed by the petitioner herein seeking to quash the punishment of removal from service imposed in the departmental proceedings and the same was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Assistant Solicitor General for respondents. Perused the record. 3. The facts, which gave rise to filing of the present proceedings, can be stated as follows: 4. Petitioner was working as a Constable, attached to Band Section, SVP National Police Academy, Hyderabad. In the Departmental enquiry, following charges were framed and an enquiry was conducted under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) rules, 1965. “Article-I: That the said Shri Jagan Mohan Rao, while functioning as Constable in the Band Section of the Academy involved in a criminal case on 05-06-1999 at about 13.30 hours which was registered by the Rajendranagar Police vide their FIR No.256/99. Article-II: That the said Shri Jagan Mohan Rao while functioning as Constable in Band Section of the Academy was arrested by the Rajendranagar Police on 09-06-99 at 08.30 hours and he was produced before the Hon’ble Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, West and South, Ranga Reddy District at Saroornagar and he was sent for judicial remand. However, Shri Jagan Mohan Rao did not bring the above incident to the notice of the superior authorities in the academy.” 5. An enquiry officer seems to have been appointed to conduct the enquiry and a report was submitted on 04-12-2000 and the petitioner was found guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority imposed penalty of dismissal of the applicant from service by order dated 13-03-2001. 6. It is not disputed that pursuant to some incident, alleging moral turpitude on the part of the petitioner, FIR in Crime No.256 of 1999 was registered by Rajendranagar Police for the offence under Section 324 IPC and after investigation, the police filed charge sheet in C.C. No.1103 of 1999 and the offence was compounded and subsequently, the petitioner was acquitted under Section 320 Cr.P.C. on 05-11-1999. The substance of the above charges framed against the petitioner is that he was involved in a criminal case in Crime No.256 of 1999 and that he was arrested by the police on 09-06-1999 and was sent to judicial custody and the petitioner did not bring the above fact to the notice of the superior authorities in the Academy. The enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of the above charges and the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. It is to be noted that no charge has been framed against the petitioner in respect of the alleged incident at the toddy shop, which according to the respondents amounted to an act of moral turpitude. Insofar as arrest of the petitioner is concerned, it is not disputed that he was released on bail within 48 hours of the arrest. Thus, the question of petitioner being kept under suspension, by applying the rules, does not arise, as he was not in judicial custody for more than the prescribed period of 48 hours. 7. The enquiry officer, however, recorded a finding to the effect that the conduct of the petitioner in going to the toddy shop and involving himself, along with others, in an incident of assault against the toddy shopkeeper, amounted to moral turpitude. No specific charge has been framed against the petitioner regarding the above said incident or about his presence or participation in the alleged incident at the toddy shop and no opportunity was given to him to deny the said charge and no evidence was also adduced to establish the same. The enquiry officer appears to have been carried away by the fact that a case was registered against the petitioner in FIR No.256 of 1999 regarding the alleged incident and he was also arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The above finding was recorded without there being any specific charge about his involvement. 8. In M.V. BIJLANI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS[1]., the Apex Court held as follows in paragraph No.23: “23. Evidently, the evidences recorded by the Enquiry Officer and inferences drawn by him were not commensurate with the charges. If it was a case of misutilisation or misappropriation, the Appellant should have been told thereabout specifically. Such a serious charge could not have been enquired without framing appropriate charges. The charges are otherwise vague. We have noticed hereinbefore that the High Court also proceeded on the basis that the non-maintenance of diary amounted to misutilisation of copper wire.” I n UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. GYAN CHAND CHATTAR[2], it was held in paragraph No.27 that without framing any specific and definite charge and no statement of allegation having been served along with the charge sheet, the enquiry stands vitiated as having been conducted in violation of principles of natural justice. 9. The principles laid down in the above decisions squarely apply to the facts of the present case wherein no charge was framed against the petitioner in respect of the alleged incident. According to the respondents, it amounts to moral turpitude and no evidence was also adduced with regard to the same and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to meet the said allegation. But, however, a finding has been recorded by the enquiry officer to the effect that the petitioner was guilty of moral turpitude, which allegation is not the subject matter of any charge framed against him. The disciplinary authority also, without due application of mind, on the charges framed and findings recorded, imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. The impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal also endorsed the punishment imposed against the petitioner, apparently being carried away by the allegation that the conduct of the petitioner amounted to moral turpitude, ignoring the fact that there was no specific charge framed against the petitioner in this regard. The learned Tribunal also appears to have been carried away by the allegation that subsequently the petitioner was involved in a criminal case in Crime No.84 of 2000 under Section 307 read with 34 IPC and was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The alleged involvement of the petitioner in a subsequent case in Crime No.84 of 2000 and his arrest and remand to judicial custody therein, has neither relevance nor any bearing over the present proceedings. It is always open to the Department to take appropriate action in accordance with law regarding the alleged subsequent involvement of the petitioner in the second offence. Insofar as the present case is concerned, without there being any charge, pertaining to the alleged conduct amounting to moral turpitude, on the part of the petitioner, the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, are not sustainable, as the enquiry is vitiated for breach of principles of natural justice. The impugned order of the learned Tribunal dismissing the O.A. and confirming the punishment is, therefore, not sustainable and is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. 10. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. It is made clear that this order will not come in the way of the department taking any action against the petitioner, including any disciplinary proceedings in respect of the alleged subsequent offence. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J September 29, 2010. __________________ G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J KTL [1][1] 2006 (5) SCC 88 [2] 2009 (8) SCJ 542