IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION Nos.18840 of 2009 Between: S.Venkata Swamy, S/o.S.Kurmaiah, aged about 36 years, Occ:Police Constable, under orders of removal, Cherial, Cherial Mandal, Warangal District ..... PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep.by its Principal Secretary, Home (Police-B) Department, Secretariat, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and 3 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION Nos.18840 of 2009 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) The petitioner is the applicant in O.A.2182/2004 on the file of the A.P.Administative Tribunal, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) and he filed the said O.A. challenging the order of the Government in removing him from service. The petitioner was removed from service vide order dated 20.06.2001 of the 4th respondent-Superintendent of Police, Warrangal. As against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent-Inspector General of Police, Warangal and the said appeal was rejected by order dated 20.07.2001. As against the appellate order, the petitioner filed a revision before the Government and the Government also dismissed the revision by order dated 18.04.2002. The petitioner questioned only the order of the 1st respondent in rejecting his revision without questioning the order of removal. The Tribunal considered all the contentions and dismissed the said O.A. on merits by order dated 10.02.2006. After 2½ years this writ petition has been filed questioning the order of the Tribunal, contending that the petitioner is removed from service as Police Constable and therefore, due to the financial crisis he could not approach this Court immediately after dismissal of the O.A. The charges levelled against the petitioner herein are as follows: Article (Charge) No.1: Sri Venkat Swamy PC 2647 while working as PS at Kothaguda PS entered into the house of one Burka Venkataiah r/o.Kothaguda on 29-08-99 at about 1600 hrs with a malafide intention by taking the advantage of loneliness of his daughter who is a minor named Burka Arjali aged 12 yrs and forcibly caught hold her, kissed her and hugged her with an intention to have sexual intercourse. But the minor girl Bhurka Anjali struggled with the said PC and ran away towards bus stand to save herself and narrated the incident to her mother Sarojanna. She enquired name and other particulars of the PC 2647 S.Venkataswamy from one Piralla Saraiah. Article (Charge) No.2: Sri S.Venkataswamy PC 2647 suspecting that the mother of the victim girl may lodge a complaint against him, he approached HC 946 P.Vidyasagar, HC 511 Md Monuddin, and PC 122 S.Kommalu of Kothaguda PS, narrated them incident committed by him and requested them to pacify the matter by approaching the parents of the victim girl. Accordingly, they met the victim girl Bhurka Anjali and her mother and requested to Pardon PC 2647 S.Venkat Swamy as he admitted his guilty before the mother of the victim girl as such the mother of the victim girl did not lodge a complaint at PS Kothaguda on same day. Later she lodge a complaint on 01-09-199 in the PS Thus Sri S.Venkataswamy PC 2647 committed gross indisciplinary behaviour being a member of disciplined force and demoralized the image of the Police. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty for both the charges levelled against him and filed a report to that effect. Pursuant to the said Enquiry Report, it is stated that the 4th respondent while agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, has called upon the petitioner to submit his explanation within 7 days as to why he shall not be removed. The said show cause notice dated 18.04.2001 goes to show that if suitable explanation is not filed within the stipulated time, it will be construed that he has no further representation to submit and oral enquiry will be disposed of according to the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Pursuant to the show cause notice dated 18.04.2001 the petitioner submitted his explanation on 05.05.2001. The only defence taken by the petitioner is that the criminal case filed against him was dismissed and he was acquitted for the charges levelled agianst him, and therefore, on the self-same charges the departmental enquiry cannot be conducted. The said explanation was considered and the disciplinary authority by order dated 20.06.2001 removed the petitioner from service. As against the said order, the appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the appellate authority, and the revision thereupon was also dismissed by the Government. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the disciplinary authority has agreed with the findings of the enquiry report, forwarding the enquiry report and asking the petitioner to submit explanation to the enquiry report is only an empty formality and the disciplinary authority has prejudged the issue. We are unable to accept the said contention, as the perusal of the show cause notice dated 18.04.2001 goes to show that though the 4th respondent prima facie agreed with the findings of the enquiry report, he has specifically called for the explanation of the petitioner before taking a final decision about the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, it cannot be said that the disciplinary authroity has already come to the conclusion agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. It is pertinent to note that the said contention has not been raised either before the Tribunal or in his reply to the show cause notice. Articles of Charges, framed against the petitioner, extracted above, are serious in nature, and in view of the evidence recorded by the Enquiry Officer, it cannot be said that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are not correct. It is to be noticed that the petitioner, while in service, has been imposed punishment for misbehaving with the S.I. and awarded punishment of postponement of increment for one year without effect on future increments. On second occasion also for outraging the modesty of one S.Pullamma on 11.10.1997, he was imposed punishment of dismissal from service, vide proceedings dated 02.09.1999 and subsequently he was reinstated into service with reduction of punishment of RTSP to minimum scale of pay for a period of five years with effect on future increments and pension. In spite of the aforesaid two punishments, there was no change in the conduct and character of the petitioner and he has made an attempt to commit heinous crime which was established in the Departmental Enquiry based on the statements given by the victim and her mother before the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, we do not see any error or infirmity, legal or otherwise in the impugned order warranting interference. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J ___________________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,J Dated: 09.09.2009 Dsr