(As per Hon'ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member) By this Original Application, the applicant is seeking the following relief:

CASE OF THE APPLICANT:

The applicant appealed to the Secretary to the Govt of India, Ministry of Home Affairs on 24.10.2024 for revocation of the impugned suspension order, dt. 15.09.2024, but, till date, no order has been passed thereon, though the applicant sent a reminder on 02.04.2025.

4. It is the contention of the applicant that the impugned proceedings appear to have been initiated at the behest of the accused No.1 in Crime No. 90/2024 i.e. Kadambari Narendra Kumar Jethwani and the Hon‟ble High Court of Andhra Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected] , CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

5. It is the contention of the applicant he was not served with copies of the documents listed in Annexure III to the charge memo, as mandated under the said Rules. Therefore, he requested the Chief Secretary, Govt. of AP, vide letter, dt. 06.12.2024, for supply of the listed documents under Annexure III, without which, he would not able be to submit a written statement and also requested to count the 30 days period from the date of supply of the said documents. In response, the Government of AP issued a Memo, dt. 11.01.2025, stating that there is no provision under Rule 8 of the AIS DA Rules to supply copies of the documents by the disciplinary authority to a Member of Service and, therefore, he was requested to submit his written statement of defence. Accordingly, the applicant submitted his written statement of defence on 16.02.2025. It is contended by the applicant that the alleged Articles of Charge leveled against him are based on wrong and false information and there was no procedural lapses, as alleged, which was attributable to Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected] , CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

7. The applicant further contends that the alleged events pertain to the period from January to February 2024, whereas, action has been initiated in September 2024, which goes to show that it is an afterthought. Further, the fact that the complainant in Crime No. 469 of 2024 has remained silent all the while, till 13.09.2024, shows that the current proceedings have been initiated against him in a premeditated and malafide manner. Even the Hon‟ble High Court in Crl. P. No. 6734/2024 observed that "Registering Crime No. 469/2024 at the behest of the accused in Crime No. 90/2024 suffers from serious legal flaw" and, accordingly, granted pre-arrest bail to the applicant. There are no specific allegations leveled against the applicant except making bald averment that he was deputed to Mumbai to know the antecedents of the complainant before filing a case in Crime No. 90/2024, which is not correct. The Hon‟ble High Court also granted stay of all further proceedings in the said crime in a petition filed by Accused No.7. The applicant further contends that the document allegedly relied upon to frame the charges is the report of the Asst. Commissioner of Police, CCS, Vijayawada, who is not a Member of service and this report appears to be the foundation for the charge memo. It is submitted that, disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated on an investigation report of a subordinate Police Officer and therefore, the entire Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected] , CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

CASE OF THE RESPONDENTS

9. Upon notices, the 1st respondent appeared through their Counsel and filed a counter affidavit. It is stated by the 1st respondent that, the DGP (HOPF), vide letter, dt. 12.09.2024, had reported that a detailed enquiry report has been received from Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected] , CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

After careful consideration of the report and having regard to the circumstances of the case and having found prima facie evidence against the applicant, it was considered necessary to initiate proceedings against the applicant for his grave misconduct and dereliction of duty, and to place him under suspension. Accordingly, the GO Rt No. 1590, dt. 15.09.2024, was issued placing him under suspension with immediate effect and the same was confirmed by the 2 nd respondent, Ministry of Home Affairs, vide letter, dt.14.10.2024. Subsequently, disciplinary proceedings have also been initiated against the applicant, vide GO Rt. No. 1957, dt. 12.11.2024.

10. It is stated that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated independently based on the administrative records for the lapses committed by the applicant after a preliminary inquiry, and the said proceedings are not connected with the criminal Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected] , CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh , (2014) 2 SCC 1 held that registration of FIR is mandatory when information discloses a cognizable offence and preliminary enquiry may be conducted only in limited circumstances, whereas, in the instant case, neither was there any such enquiry properly documented nor was any written approval obtained from the competent authority before proceeding to arrest. Production of the accused before the Judicial Magistrate, Mumbai, and grant of transit remand cannot be construed as validation of the arrest.

11. It is stated that the version of the applicant in his written statement, dt. 01.09.2024, is different from the case being sought to be projected before this Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected] , CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected] , CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

As the Hon‟ble High Court has stayed all further proceedings against the applicant in Crime No. 469/2024 on the file of Ibrahimpatnam PS, which is the basis for initiating disciplinary action against him and extending his suspension, the very basis is wiped out and therefore, the impugned suspension of the applicant and the extensions thereof, are not sustainable.

16. Heard Counsels for both the sides and perused the material available on record.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

17. Mr. Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant, primarily argued that the impugned proceedings have been initiated against the applicant on the basis of the statement/ complaint of Kum. Kadambari Jethwani, who is an accused No.1 in Crime No. 90 of 2024 and therefore, the impugned Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected] , CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

18. Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the applicant, further argued that the applicant was neither the investigating officer nor was part of the arresting team in Crime No. 90/2024. He was sent to Mumbai only for coordination and liaison and action has been initiated against the applicant, while there has been no action against the investigating and arresting team. Hence, the action of the respondents smacks of a pick-and-choose method, with a well planned conspiracy to punish him, for no fault of his. This is further strengthened by the fact that, despite many alleged inconsistencies with respect to Crime No. 90/2024, Respondents are yet to close the said Crime. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the applicant has been granted pre-arrest bail in Crl. P No. 6734/2024, vide order, dt. 07.01.2025, by the Hon‟ble High Court, while observing that registering of Crime No. 469/2024 against the applicant suffers from a serious legal flaw. The Hon‟ble Court, vide its order, dt. 08.05.2025, in Crl. P. No. 4395 of 2025, stayed all further proceedings against the applicant in connection with Crime No. 469 of 2024 and, thereby, wiping out the very basis for extension of the applicant‟s suspension. Learned Counsel also pointed out that there is no progress in the inquiry against the applicant and there is no whisper in the counter affidavit/ orders of extension of suspension, to indicate the progress/ stage of the disciplinary proceedings, even after passage of one year.

19. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that, on the pretext of pendency of the enquiry/ criminal investigation, the applicant cannot be kept in suspension for an indefinite period and, in support of his argument, Learned Counsel cited the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Param Raj Singh Umaranangal v. Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU

DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected] , CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

20. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for the State of Andhra Pradesh argued that the DGP (HOPF), vide letter, dt. 12.09.2024, had reported that a detailed enquiry report has been received from the Commissioner of Police, NTR Police Commissionerate, Vijayawada, regarding allegations on investigation in Cr. No. 90 of 2024, Ibrahimpatnam PS, against an actress from Mumbai, Kum. Kadambari Narendra Kumari Jethwani. It is also reported that the applicant failed to properly supervise the investigation and did not ensure that the complaint was thoroughly examined and no basic investigation was carried out before issuing instructions to proceed with arrest. The applicant had met the then DPG, Intelligence, on 31.01.2024. The FIR was registered on 02.02.2024, at 6.30 AM, and the applicant hastily proceeded to Mumbai on 02.02.2024, at 7.30 AM, without any written instructions from his superior officers and he acted solely based on the prior Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected] , CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

21. Learned Government Pleader further submitted that the arresting team failed to furnish crucial material facts regarding the timeline and procedural lapses to the remand court in the course of further investigation of Cr. No. 90/2024 and Cr. No. 469/2024 of Ibrahimpatnam PS. Learned Counsel submits that the record indicates that the accused officers, including A-6, acted with prior knowledge and intent to arrest the defacto complainant even before the registration of any FIR in Crime No. 90/2024 and, in pursuit thereof, they book flights tickets on 01.02.2024 and they also assembled in the CMO Office, which clearly indicate that police action was initiated in furtherance of a premeditated conspiracy, rather than based on any preliminary enquiry, as claimed.

22. Learned Government Pleader further submitted that the version of the applicant in his written statement, dt. 01.09.2024, is different from the case being projected before this Tribunal. Considering the rank and seniority of the applicant and his involvement in influencing the chain of events, the apprehension that he may Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected] , CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

No. 469/2024, dt. 13.09.2024, registered against the applicant and other police officers and the fact that case has been transferred to the CID, vide proceedings, dt. 09.10.2024, for further investigation and the possibility of tampering of evidence and influencing the process of inquiry and investigation by the applicant. Having accepted the recommendations of the Review Committee, suspension of the applicant was extended for a further period upto 09.09.2025. Learned Government Pleader submitted that though the applicant represented on 06.12.2024, seeking copies of all the relevant documents mentioned in Annexure III to the Charge Memo, dt. 12.11.2024, as per sub-rule (5)(a) of Rule 8 of AIS DA Rules, only a list of documents needs to be provided by the DA to the MoS and, as per sub-rule 12 of Rule 8, the Inquiring Authority shall furnish relevant copies of documents to the MoS, during the inquiry and there is no express provision under Rule 8 to supply copies of documents listed in Annexure III by the DA to the MoS and the same was informed to the applicant, vide Memo dt. 11.01.2025, and, thereupon, he submitted his written statement, dt. 16.02.2025, while referring to OM, dt. 02.02.2023, in regard to supply of the said documents. The learned Counsel argued that there is a distinction between the statutory rules, i.e., AIS DA Rules and the executive instructions, i.e., OM dt. 02.02.2023, and, since the Rules do not mandate supply of Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected] , CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

24. To analyze the issue involved in the case and come to a conclusion, it is necessary to refer to the facts in respect of the allegations leveled against the applicant to suspend him, which is impugned in the present OA. The order of suspension, dt. 15.09.2025, impugned in the OA, reads thus:

25. Further, according to the respondents, the reason for suspension of the applicant is that cognizance of several media reports claiming the involvement of police officers including IPS officers in a case allegedly foisted against the accused No.1 in Crime No. 90/2024 has been taken by the Commissioner of Police, NTR Commissionerate, Vijayawada, suo motu, vide Memo, dt. 29.08.2024, by appointing an officer, by name, Smt. K. Sravanthi Roy, Asst. Commissioner of Police, CCS, Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected] , CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

26. According to the Respondents, after the said enquiry, the complaint has been taken from Accused No.1 in Crime No. 90/2024, against the applicant and other officials, and FIR No. 469/2024 was registered. Against the said FIR, the applicant and other officials approached the Hon‟ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in Criminal Petition No. 6734/2024 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. & 482 of BSSS, seeking anticipatory bail and, after hearing all the parties, anticipatory bail has been granted to the applicant as well as others, vide order, dated 07.01.2025. Further, the applicant also filed Criminal Petition No.4395 of 2025, for quashing FIR No. 469/2024 and the Hon‟ble High Court, having considered the petition of the applicant along with the petitions filed by other accused, vide order, dated 08.05.2025, stayed all further proceedings pursuant to the said FIR. Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU

DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected] , CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

(iii) .....

Except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorize in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.

30. From what is extracted above, it is relevant to see the purport of "such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court." The real meaning of any proceeding in any Court requires an elaboration. The word proceeding in the above provision is used in a wider sense. It is not confined to proceedings that come into existence only after a learned Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence. It includes a proceeding held by a Magistrate on receipt of an investigating officer's report made under Section 167(1) Cr.P.C. which is covered by the provision proceeding mentioned in Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. where a person makes a false report to the police against certain persons resulting in they being arrested and being remanded to custody and leading to an application for bail being made by them, the remand proceedings and the bail proceedings are connected with the false report made by the person and the offence committed by him by making it. Then it must be held to be an offence committed in relation to those proceedings. As the proceedings are related to the offence in the manner mentioned above, the offence must be said to have been committed in relation to them. Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. is therefore applicable and no cognizance of the offence can be taken without a complaint by the Magistrate. A complaint by a private person cannot lead to prosecution for such offences. This question at one point of time arose before their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M.L.Sethi v. R.P.Kapur10 . However, their Lordships in the light of the case available therein did not choose to decide it and left it open. Subsequently, similar question came up before their Lordships. After considering the entire catena of precedent, their Lordships were pleased to emphatically laid down the law in Abdul Rehman 's case cited above. That was a case where on a complaint, F.I.R. was registered for the offence under Section 406 read with 34 1.P.C. and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused arraigned therein applied for anticipatory bail and the same was granted by a learned Sessions Judge. Thereafter the accused therein filed a complaint alleging offence under Section 211 I.P.C. and other provisions of Indian Penal Code contending that the F.I.R. registered against him was a false accusation. It was in such circumstances, the complainant in the first registered crime who was arraigned as accused in the second registered crime had raised a question concerning maintainability of the second F.I.R. and argued the law based on Section 195 Cr.P.C. Answering it their Lordships held that the accused in the first crime having moved the learned Sessions Judge praying for anticipatory bail and having been granted the prayer of anticipatory bail there existed proceedings before that Court. Thereafter, at the behest of the said accused on the allegation of false complaint the second crime emerged. Thus, the second crime is in connection with the proceedings taken up before the Sessions Court. Therefore, the bar contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C. is clearly attracted. It was further recorded that any offence punishable under Section 211 I.P.C. could be taken cognizance of only at the instance of the Court in relation to whose proceedings the same was committed. In the case at hand, this Court in the earlier paragraphs detailed the facts and legal events concerning Crime No.90 of 2024. Pursuant to registration of Crime No.90 of 2024 accused were arrested and a competent Magistrate passed a remand order, thereafter a police custody order and thereafter a bail order. Thus, they Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected] , CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

31. On considering the entire record and rival submissions, it is clear that nearly 23 witnesses were examined and investigation progressed for nearly four months. Availability of petitioners and their social roots stand undisputed. It is not anybody's case that any one of the petitioners has any criminal antecedents. The legal flaws have already been mentioned in the earlier paragraphs. Therefore, any further discussion on several other aspects argued and legal authorities cited need no mention. In these circumstances, this court is of the considered view that the petitioners have made out their case for prearrest bail. The observations made in this order are meant to decide these petitions and they have no bearing for any other proceedings in the subject matter crime.

32. In the result, all the Criminal Petitions are allowed in the following terms:

(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Investigating officer concerned.

2. The petitioners shall inform in advance to the concerned investigating officers about their travel details if any.

3. The petitioners shall always make themselves available for investigation as and when required.

4. They shall not interact or influence the witnesses."

28. Subsequently, in Criminal Petition No.4395/2025, filed by the applicant, under Section 482 CrPC, while recording the facts, vide order, dt. 08.05.2025, while staying the proceedings, the Hon‟ble High Court has observed that :

It is submitted that the very genesis of the registration of Crime No. 469 of 2024 is not legal and valid in the eyes of the law. It is also submitted that without Crime No. 90 of 2024 being decided on merits after a full-fledged trial, an allegation regarding the registration of a false crime and the subsequent registration of a fresh crime against the police officers and the legal advisor must be set aside. It is further submitted that the continuation of an investigation in a case that has no foundation should be addressed by this Court. It is also submitted that while registering Crime No. 469 of 2024, the police officer did not conduct any preliminary investigation before registering case. The Commissioner of Police the enquiry report submitted by the Assistant cannot be considered as the preliminary investigation, which is essentially required to be conducted by the investigating officer. The learned Senior Counsel appearing in CrI.P. No. 3933 of 2025 submits that the registration of Crime No. 469 of 2024 is in direct violation of the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Lalitha Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others .

It is submitted that the petitioner, being the investigating officer, has followed the procedure as contemplated under Cr.P.C ./BNSS for the purpose of investigation. It is also submitted that the petitioner has obtained a search warrant from the competent court and also required a passport from the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada. It is further submitted that the 2 nd respondent did not file any complaint, raise any objection, or submit any memo to the transit Magistrate when the transit warrant was sought by the investigating officer. The 2"^ respondent also had ample opportunity before the learned Magistrate when the investigating officer filed an application seeking police custody. The petitioner did not grounds or allegations against the petitioner or others in the bail application or in any other proceedings before this Court. As such, there is an abnormal delay of seven months in registering the F.I.R.

It is submitted by both the learned Senior Counsels appearing in the above CrI.Ps that the continuation of the investigation crime against the petitioner is a stigma on his career, and as such, they insist for an interim direction for a stay of all further proceedings in the case. The learned Senior Counsel also relies on Sections 195 and 211 of the Cr.F.C. and submits that the registration of Crime No. 469 of 2024 is in contravention of both provisions of law. The learned Advocate General appearing for the State submits that the police have registered a crime after the receipt of the complaint, and the offences punishable under various provisions of law, as mentioned above, would entitle the police to initiate an investigation. It is further submitted that Section 354(D) cannot be read into Sections 211 and 195 of the Cr.P.C. Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected] , CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

29. Thus, it is quite clear from the orders of the Hon‟ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh that the Government does not have power to entertain such a complaint from Accused No.1 in Crime No.90/2024 and when the Hon‟ble High Court is Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected] , CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

30. Further, while dealing with the matter of suspension, we have come across similar circumstances in OA No. 273 of 2023, filed by Mr. A.B. Venkateswara Rao, IPS, wherein, with the change in Government, the official was victimized and by misusing the power and law, the officer was placed under suspension. While setting aside the suspension, this Tribunal observed thus:

The case of the applicant is also similar, in so far as his suspension is concerned. It is also to be noted that, for the first time, we are coming across such type of allegation that the officer has acted as per the superior officials‟ oral instructions promptly. Most of the time, the allegations by the Government are that the officers do not act even upon written instructions.

31. As seen from the record, it is not in dispute that when Crime No. 90/2024 was registered by the Ibrahimpatnam PS, the applicant was working as DCP, NTR Commissionerate, Vijayawada, but he was not the Incharge officer. He had only acted upon the oral instructions by the then DGP, Intelligence, and the then CP, Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected] , CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

32. It is to be noted that, the Hon‟ble High Court, while taking cognizance of registration of Crime No.469/2024, at the behest of Accused No.1 in Crime No. 90/2024, who has been made the defacto complainant to register the said crime, has stayed further proceedings and the Hon‟ble High Court is seized of the matter, and has observed that registration of the said crime suffers from legal flaws. Therefore, taking cognizance of the complaint of Accused No.1 in Crime No. 90/2024 and, issuing the suspension order and further extension orders by the respondents, is not justified. After registration of the FIR, the matter was taken before the Hon‟ble High Court by the applicant as well as other accused in Crime No. 469/2024 and the same was well within the knowledge of the Government. Still, showing utter disregard to the order of the Hon‟ble High Court and in contravention of the same, Respondents have initiated action against the applicant. Therefore, the entire action of the respondents in placing the applicant under suspension and extending the suspension period further, till 09.09.2025, is unwarranted and the same is not sustainable under the law.

33. It is also to be noted that the learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh, represented the Government before the Hon‟ble High Court in the same matter and, after going through the reply of the State Government and after hearing the arguments of the learned AG, the Hon‟ble High Court has passed the above referred order. After the observations of the Hon‟ble High Court in their order, it is expected of the Government not to extend the suspension period under the so called review. In fact, the Government, while extending the suspension of the applicant Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected] , CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

When the applicant, after acting as per the said oral instruction of his superiors and, thereafter, as per his transfer, he had reported to the new place of posting at Vizag on 06.03.2024, it is not the case of respondents that the applicant was interfering or indulging at any time in the investigation being carried out in Crime No. 90/2024 at Vijayawada. Furthermore, when Crime No. 469/2024 was registered at the behest of the defacto complainant, who is Accused No.1 in Crime No. 90/2024, neither she nor the other two accused have ventilated any grievances against any of the police officials, including the applicant and others, either, before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai, while granting transit remand, or before the regular Criminal Court, at Vijayawada or before the Hon‟ble High Court in the Criminal Petition No. 2732/2024, filed by the defacto complainant, who is Accused No.1 in Crime No. 90/2024.

Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU

DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected] , CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

34. In the context of suspension, we have perused the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty , (1994) 4 SCC 126, cited by the applicant and the relevant portion is extracted as under:

The applicant further relied upon the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Agarwal , (2013) 16 SCC 147, in support of his contention that an order of suspension should only be passed when there is a strong prima facie case against the delinquent after considering the gravity of the alleged misconduct. The relevant portion "9. The power of suspension should not be exercised in an arbitrary manner and without any reasonable ground or as vindictive misuse of power. Suspension should be made only in a case where there is a strong prima facie case against the delinquent employee and the allegations involving moral turpitude, grave misconduct or indiscipline or refusal to carry out the orders of superior authority are there, or there is a strong prima facie case against him, if proved, would ordinarily result in reduction in rank, removal or dismissal from service. Xxx ."

35. It is also to be noted that the respondents are trying to make out the reasons for suspension on the basis of the so-called media reports. Neither in the complaint of the defecto complainant, who is Accused No.1, nor in the inquiry report, submitted by Smt. Sravanthi Roy, ACP, there is any whisper about the so-called media reports about harassment caused by the police officials to Accused No.1 in Crime No. 90/2024. Therefore, this is nothing but a story concocted by the Respondents and the allegations raised against the applicant are baseless. Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU

DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected] , CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

36. It is also to be noted that while making appointment of the Enquiry Officer to enquire into the matter involving high ranking officials, an officer junior to the said officials cannot be appointed as enquiry officer. This is nothing but demoralizing the applicant at the hands of the administration, which is in contravention of the guidelines issued by the Government of India, Cabinet Secretariat, Department of Personnel, vide OM No. 7/1/70/Est.(A), dt. 06.01.1971, besides being contrary to law.

37. On the face of record, the officer acted as per the instructions of superior officials, as admitted by the respondents. It has been admitted by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that the official, who instructed the applicant, is the voice of CMO, and the entire action started under the said Crime No. 90/2024, dt. 02.02.2024. But, after seven months, taking the complaint from Accused No.1, making her defacto complainant by the Respondents and registering Crime No. 469/2024 and placing the applicant under suspension and further, continuing the said suspension for almost one year, is nothing but victimization of the officer/ applicant by making accusations against the officials. It is also to be noted that the said suspension order was issued under Rule 3(1) of AIS DA Rules, 1969, and as per Rule 3 (1B) of the said Rules, wherein the charge being other than corruption, suspension cannot be continued beyond one year. Admittedly, in the said matter, charge memo under disciplinary action was issued to the applicant in November, 2024, and till date, neither the IO nor the PO has been appointed. According to the said provision, enquiry itself has to be completed within one year from the date of suspension or, otherwise, suspension will automatically be revoked. Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU

DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected] , CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Further, it is not the case of the Respondents that the superior authorities, namely, the then Director General of Police, Intelligence, and the then Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, have denied having deputed the applicant for coordination and liaison at Mumbai. In these circumstances, the so-called oral orders cannot be doubted or disbelieved, nor can bona fide compliance with them be treated as a lapse.

DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected] , CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Further, The Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held in the case State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty , (1994) 4 SCC 126 "13.... an administrative routine or an automatic order to suspend an employee. It should be on consideration of the gravity of the alleged misconduct or the nature of the allegations..."

Therefore, Non-Claiming of Travelling Allowance, in the given circumstances, does not disclose any element of dishonesty or misconduct. Hence, reliance on Non-Claiming of Travelling Allowance bills as a ground for suspension is wholly unsustainable.

(D) The apprehension of influencing the disciplinary case or tampering with evidence is wholly unfounded. Pursuant to G.O.Rt. No. 1245 dated 11.07.2024, the applicant was directed to report to the DGP (HoPF) for further posting, and, from then onwards, he has since remained in the status of „waiting for posting‟. In that capacity, he had no access to records or witnesses connected with the case.

Further, the Hon‟ble High Court has stayed all further proceedings in Crime No. 469/2024, which itself was instituted at the instance of Accused No. 1 in Crime No. 90/2024. In these circumstances, there can be no apprehension of interference with investigation, inquiry, or influencing any witnesses by the applicant. Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU

DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, VISWESWARA RAO ESURU STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected] , CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location: