IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION Nos.13096 of 1999 and 8504 of 2004 Between: 1.K. Radhakrishnaiah, s/o. K. Ramaswamy, aged about 57 years, Assistant Director (Admn.,),SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati. 2. Smt K. Roja Ramani d/o.K. Radhakrishnaiah, R/o.Tirpati. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Station, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 2. The Superintendent, SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in registering the Crime No.171 of 1999 against the petitioners herein, as illegal, improper, unjust and contrary to law. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.P.GANGAIAH NAIDU Counsel for Respondent No.1: GP FOR HOME. Counsel for Respondent No.2: GP FOR SERVICES-I WRIT PETITION NO : 8504 of 2004 Between: Smt.K.Roja Rani, w/o Sri P.Prasad Babu, r/o 10-55, Tirupati-Renigunta Road, Tirupati, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent, SVRR Government General Hospital, Tirupati. 2 The Director of Medical Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings in Rc.No.1011/B3/98 dt.17-12-1998 and Proc.Rc.No.655/E3/99 dt.10- 02-99 issued by the 2nd respondent and the judgment of the AP Administrative Tribunal dt.23-03-2004 passed in OA No.755/199, as illegal, improper, unjust and contrary to law. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.BHARAT BABU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES- I The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER: (per GM, J) At the request of both the learned counsel, these writ petitions are taken up together for disposal by this common order, since common issue is involved. 2. W.P.No.13096 of 1999 is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in registering a case in Crime No.171 of 1999 of Central Crime Station, Chittoor, against the petitioners, as illegal and improper. The second petitioner therein filed W.P.No.8504 of 2004 seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings dated 17.12.1998 and 10.02.1999 issued by the first respondent and the order, dated 23.03.2004 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.755 of 1999, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. For convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in W.P.No.13096 of 1999. 4. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The first and second petitioners are father and daughter respectively. The first petitioner worked as Assistant Director (Admn) in SVRR Government General Hospital, Tirupati. The second petitioner pursued Laboratory Technician Course in Rami Educational Academy, Hyderabad, which was purportedly recognized by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.1073, dated 13.10.1983, and obtained diploma. She got registered her name in the District Employment Exchange, Chittoor, which sponsored her name along with others for the post of Lab Attendant. The Selection Committee selected her for the said post and accordingly, she joined the second respondent hospital on 26.09.1998. While so, the second respondent-Superintendent, SVRR Government General Hospital, Tirupati, issued proceedings, dated 17.12.1998 terminating her services on the ground that as per memo, dated 07.01.1997 issued by the Government, G.O.Ms.No.1073, dated 13.10.1983 recognizing the said Rami Educational Academy, is a fake one. Challenging the said termination proceedings, she filed O.A.No.8935 of 1998 before the Tribunal and the same was disposed of on 22.12.1998 directing her to file an appeal before the appellate authority and kept the termination proceedings in abeyance till the disposal of such appeal. Accordingly, she filed an appeal on 30.12.1998 before the Director of Medical Education, Hyderabad, second respondent in W.P.No.8504 of 2004, but the same was dismissed on 08.02.1999. Consequent on dismissal of the said appeal, the second respondent issued proceedings, dated 10.02.1999 afresh terminating her services as Lab Attendant, against which, she again filed O.A.No.755 of 1999 before the Tribunal. While the matter stood thus, the second respondent filed a complaint on 30.04.1999 before the police alleging that the second petitioner produced a false certificate for securing a job in the hospital. There upon, the police registered a case in Crime No.171 of 1999 against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 468, 471, 420 and 120-B IPC. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed W.P.No.13096 of 1999. Questioning the termination proceedings, dated 17.12.1998, and the proceedings, dated 08.02.1999 issued by the appellate authority, and on the ground that the Tribunal has not passed any interim orders in O.A.No.755 of 1999, the second petitioner filed W.P.No.4681 of 1999, wherein this Court vide its order, dated 09.03.1999 directed respondents 1 and 2 therein to continue her in service. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court, they reinstated her into service. Subsequently, the Tribunal dismissed O.A.No.755 of 1999 on 23.03.2004. Assailing the proceedings of termination, dated 17.12.1998, 10.02.1999 and the order, dated 23.03.2004 passed in the said OA, the second petitioner filed W.P.No.8504 of 2004. 5. On 29.06.1999, this Court, while admitting W.P.No.13096 of 1999, granted interim stay of all further proceedings in the criminal case. 6. No counter-affidavit is filed in W.P.No.13096 of 1999. The first respondent in W.P.No.8504 of 2004 filed counter-affidavit inter alia stating that the second petitioner has misguided the selection committee by producing a certificate issued by Rami Educational Academy, which is not a recognized institution as per the Government Memos, dated 07.01.1997 and 10.03.2008. It is further stated that as part of the departmental disciplinary procedure, a case in Crime No.171 of 1999 was registered against the petitioners. It is also stated that the second petitioner filed W.P.No.4681 of 1999 and obtained interim orders to continue her in service as Lab Attendant in the second respondent hospital. Accordingly, the petitioner has been reinstated into service vide proceedings, dated 26.07.1999 and is continuing as such. 7. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that inasmuch as the second petitioner has been duly selected and appointed in accordance with the procedure on 26.09.1998, the action of the second respondent terminating her on the ground that she obtained diploma certificate from an un-recognized institution, is illegal and arbitrary. He further contended that the appellate authority has not considered the fact with regard to the regularization of services of one Mr.Wilson Benny and 26 others, whose diplomas were also initially found not valid, by sending them for training afresh to a recognized institution. He also contended that the registration of criminal case against the first petitioner is unlawful because he is not at all concerned with the case. Therefore, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed. In support of the same, he relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in GIRISH SARWATE v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH[1]. “ I n Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P. [(2003) 3 SCC 11] the Supreme Court again emphatically stated that where a complaint or FIR, prima facie, does not disclose commission of any cognizable offence against the accused, the same should be quashed. In para 19 of the judgment, it is held that: “The High court has held that the petitions filed by the appellants for quashing the complaint and the FIRs registered against them are premature. The question, which arises is that were the complaint or the FIR does not disclose commission of a cognizable offence, whether the same can be quashed at the initial stage. This question was examined by this Court in State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha (1982) 1 SCC 561= 1982 SCC (Crl.) 283=AIR 1982 SC 949,and it was held that the first information report which does not allege or disclose that the essential requirements of the penal provision are prima facie satisfied, cannot form the foundation or constitute the starting point of a lawful investigation. It is surely not within the province of the police to investigate into a report (FIR) which does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and the Code does not impose upon them the duty of inquiry in such cases. It was further held that an investigation can be quashed if no cognizable offence is disclosed by the FIR. The same question has been considered in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) Supp.(1) SCC 335-1992 SCC (Crl.) 426=AIR 1992 SC 604 and after considering all the earlier decisions, the category of cases, in which the court can exercise its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the constitution or the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice, were summarized in AIR para 108 of the Report and sub-paras (1) to (3) thereof are being reproduced herein below: (SCC p.378, para 102) 1. Where the allegations made in the first Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the first Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. He further relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported in STATE OF HARYANA v. CH.BHAJAN LAL[2], wherein it held as under: “Cognizable offence- F.I.R. and investigation-Quashing of, in exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.-Guidelines regarding- Allegations in complaint clearly constituting cognizable offence- Quashing of F.I.R.-Not justified”. He submitted that though Mr.K.Wilson Benny and others pursued Lab Technician Course in an unrecognized institution, namely, S.V.Medical College, Tirupathi, the respondents sent them for training afresh and regularized their services. Therefore, the services of the second petitioner may be regularized on par with the above said persons. 8. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I submitted that during the year 1993, the number of G.Os issued by the Government did not exceed 1000 and G.O.Ms.No.1073 issued in the said year is a fake one and that the diploma certificate issued by Rami Educational Academy, which is allegedly recognized by the said G.O., in respect of the second petitioner is also not genuine. Therefore, the second respondent rightly terminated her services. 9. Learned Government Pleader for Home submitted that in view of the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.No.13096 of 1999, the investigation in the criminal case was stopped. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the material on record, we are of the view that whether G.O.Ms.No.1073, dated 13.10.1993 is genuine or not, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the appointment inasmuch as the Selection Committee selected her after following the procedure. In fact, the second respondent regularized the services of Mr. K.Wilson Benny, who is similarly situated to the second petitioner, vide proceedings, dated 22.08.1986, a copy of which is placed on record. Therefore, we find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners to consider the case of the second petitioner on par with Mr. K.Wilson Benny. In that view of the matter, the impugned proceedings of termination and the order in O.A.No.755 of 1999 are liable to be set aside. 11. The learned Government Pleader for Services-I submitted that if the second petitioner files a representation before the authorities concerned, her case would be considered in accordance with law. 12. As far as the criminal case in Crime No.171 of 1999 is concerned, a perusal of the First Information Report shows that there are allegations against the second petitioner but not against the first petitioner. However, the said allegations do not constitute any cognizable offence against the second petitioner also. In view of the same and following the judgments cited supra, the FIR in Crime No.171 of 1999 registered against the petitioners is liable to be quashed. 13. Accordingly, FIR in Crime No.171 of 1999 of Central Crime Station, Chittoor, against the petitioners is quashed and the proceedings, dated 17.12.1998 and 10.02.1999 and the order, dated 23.03.2004, in O.A.No.755 of 1999 are set aside. The second petitioner is at liberty to file a representation before the authorities concerned seeking to consider her case on par with Mr. K.Wilson Benny and on such filing, the authorities shall consider her case and pass appropriate orders. If it is just and necessary in the interest of the Institution, the authorities may depute her to undergo training afresh. 14. In view of the above, both the Writ Petitions are allowed. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date:04.03.2009 sj [1] 2004(6) ALT 757 (F.B) [2] AIR 1992 SC 604(1)