IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 14169 of 2008 Between: 1 The Superintendent of Police, Medak District. at Sangareddy.z 2 The Dy. Inspector General of Police, Hyderabad Range, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND Sri. V. Ramulu S/ Laxmaiah R/o Regode Village & mandal of Medak District. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or directions after calling for the records relating to and connected with the judgment of the Hon'ble AP Administrative Tribunal Dt. 03-04-2008 In O.A. No. 8532/2005 and quash or set- a side the same by holding as illegal, arbitrary, and pass such order or further orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) The writ petition is filed questioning the order, dated 03.04.2008, passed in O.A.No.8532 of 2005 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The parties herein, are referred to as arrayed in the O.A., for the sake of convenience. The applicant-respondent was appointed as Armed Reserve Police Constable and after completion of basic training, he was posted to Sangareddy Headquarters. Later, he was posted at Government Degree College along with other Constables to look after the ballot boxes. On 26.02.1998, the applicant was required to perform guard duty from 12:00 hours to 1400 hours, but he did not relieve the Constable – 1670, who was in duty, in time. The Guard-in-Charge asked him for not relieving PC 1670 in time, for which the applicant abused him in a filthy language. The Guard-in-Charge reported the matter to his immediate Officer, and subsequently, to SDPO, and Arms Ammunition allotted to the applicant were taken back and deposited in the P.S. It is also stated that on 27.02.1998, the applicant interfered and intervened into the discussion of ARHC 194 and ARHC 120 and beat HC 194 and caused bleeding injury. The ARHC 194 lodged a complaint against the applicant at Siddipet-I Town PS, and a case in Cr.No.52/1998, under Section 332 IPC was registered. The applicant was placed under suspension through order, dated 17.03.1998. An enquiry was ordered, and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report stating that the charges levelled against the applicant are proved. In the criminal case the applicant was convicted. Subsequently, the applicant was removed from service, treating the suspension period with effect from 18.09.1998 to 31.08.1999 as not on duty. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant filed O.A.No.8532 of 2995 on the file of the Tribunal. Through the impugned order, dated 03.04.2008, the Tribunal allowed O.A., and set aside the order of removal from service. Assailing the same, the present Writ Petition is field. Learned Government Pleader contended that when once the charges against the applicant are proved, and the criminal Court also held the applicant guilty, there was no justification for the Tribunal to set aside the order of removal, and therefore, no exception can be taken to the order of removal passed against the applicant. The grounds urged by the applicant before the Tribunal are that he was not permitted to cross-examine the witnesses, and solely basing on the judgment of the criminal Court, he was found guilty; that the procedure prescribed under Rule 20 of the A.P.C.S.(CC&A) Rules, was not followed, and that the punishment is disproportionate to the charges levelled against the applicant. The respondents therein filed a counter-affidavit, opposing the application. The report of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Toopran depicts that as many as 10 witnesses were examined and cross-examined on behalf of the applicant. He submitted his report on 01.07.2000, stating that the charges levelled against the applicant are proved, whereas the judgment of the criminal Court is, dated 04.02.2004. Therefore, the contention of the applicant, that he was found guilty of the offence under Section 332 I.P.C., based upon the judgment of the criminal Court, cannot be accepted. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the material on record, found that the punishment of removal of the applicant from service is disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. It was also observed that when the criminals are given opportunity to reform by applying Probation of Offenders Act, the same benefit should have been extended to the applicant also, and accordingly, set aside the order of punishment imposed against him, by remanding the matter to the Superintendent of Police, Medak, for re-consideration, in the light of extenuating circumstances. On perusal of the material on record, we are of the view that though there are lapses on the part of the applicant, the punishment that can be imposed against him must be commensurate with the gravity of the charges. Everybody commits mistakes and an opportunity must be given to reform. Minor lapses cannot be permitted to become a ground to seal the career of the applicant, once for all. The punishment of removal from service is not commensurate with the gravity of charges levelled against the applicant, and hence, we do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J. Dated:03.07.2008 ______________ C.V.RAMULU,J. GJ