“Acquittal After Full Consideration of Evidence Cannot Be Brushed Aside”: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Dismissal, Says “Disciplinary Authority Ignored Critical Contradictions”
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh set aside disciplinary proceedings against a former Field Assistant at the District Courts, Kadapa, holding that the petitioner’s acquittal in a parallel criminal trial had been based on full consideration of the prosecution's evidence. The Court observed that the disciplinary authority had failed to account for key contradictions and admissions in witness testimonies and had imposed a penalty that was not commensurate with the alleged misconduct. The Bench recorded that “allowing the findings in the disciplinary proceedings to stand will be unjust, unfair and oppressive.”
The Division Bench comprising Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Dr. Justice K. Manmadha Rao directed the reinstatement of the petitioner with all consequential benefits, including seniority, notional promotions, and fitment of salary. The disciplinary order dated 30.06.2015 was quashed. The Court held that the evidence in the departmental inquiry was identical to that in the criminal proceedings, and the acquittal was based on full judicial evaluation of the same material.
The petitioner was employed as Field Assistant (Amin) in the District Courts at Kadapa. A criminal case in Crime No. 186 of 2013 under Sections 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against him following a complaint dated 25.09.2013 by one Sri V. Ramachandra Reddy. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 03.10.2013. Based on this development, the petitioner was placed under suspension by proceedings dated 03.10.2013. Subsequently, a preliminary enquiry was ordered by the disciplinary authority, and upon the recommendation of the I Additional District Judge, Kadapa, a regular departmental enquiry was initiated.
Sri T. Raghu Kumar, Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The enquiry involved examination of five witnesses. The Enquiry Officer, in his report dated 09.04.2015, held that Charges 1 and 3 were not proved, while Charge 2 was proved.
Despite the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice on 21.04.2015 disagreeing with the report. The petitioner was called upon to submit a reply, which he did. Thereafter, without further opportunity, the petitioner was dismissed from service by proceedings dated 30.06.2015.
The charges against the petitioner were based on allegations that he had accepted a sum of Rs.8,00,000 from a retired judicial employee on the promise of securing employment in the judicial department for the latter’s son. It was further alleged that the petitioner had threatened the complainant and his son on 10.09.2013, which led to the filing of the police complaint.
In response to the disciplinary action, the petitioner challenged the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the disciplinary order. It was argued that the disciplinary authority failed to consider critical evidence, including admissions elicited during cross-examinations, and proceeded solely based on selective aspects of witness testimonies.
It was also submitted that the petitioner had been acquitted by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa, in CC No. 9 of 2015, wherein the same witnesses were examined. The petitioner contended that the acquittal was not based on technicalities or benefit of doubt but followed a full assessment of evidence. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 7935 of 2023, to argue that the findings in a criminal trial based on the same material must be considered in judicial review of disciplinary actions.
The respondents contended that the disciplinary authority had followed Rule 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, and issued the dismissal after duly disagreeing with the enquiry report. It was argued that the petitioner was provided a fair opportunity to respond and that the penalty of dismissal was proportionate to the misconduct, which allegedly involved moral turpitude.
The Court examined the procedural history and noted that the disciplinary authority had disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and imposed a major penalty without adequately considering the entire evidentiary record. The Bench recorded: “It is further observed that the Enquiry Officer and the 2nd respondent had only referred to the statements in the Chief examination and failed to consider the specific admissions elicited in the cross examination.”
The Court noted that PW.1 admitted in cross-examination that his son had applied for the post of Junior Assistant in 2010, and that an appointment letter was expected soon after the alleged payment. The Court observed that “no explanation for the gap between 2011 to 2013 having been not explained, the entire evidence of PW.1 to PW.5 ought to have been eschewed.”
The Court further recorded that the confrontation and assault alleged to have occurred on 10.09.2013, which formed the basis for the criminal complaint, lacked corroboration in the preliminary enquiry statements. The Court observed that the evidence presented by the prosecution witnesses was “totally false and do not stand to scrutiny.”
In relation to the criminal proceedings, the Court noted that the same witnesses were examined and that PW.1 admitted knowledge of the appointment procedure and acknowledged the lack of any agreement linking the promissory notes to job placement. The Court stated: “It is also noted that both suits which were filed against the petitioner herein were decreed on the basis of pronotes only for recovery of the money transaction but not for the purpose of providing job.”
Addressing the legal position regarding the impact of acquittal in a criminal trial on disciplinary proceedings, the Court recorded: “Expressions like ‘benefit of doubt’ and ‘honorably acquitted’ used in judgments are not to be understood as magic incantation. A court of law will not be carried away by the mere use of such terminology.” The Court held that the acquittal in the criminal proceedings had followed a full consideration of the prosecution evidence, and the prosecution had failed to prove the charge.
The Court concluded that, “allowing the findings in the disciplinary proceedings to stand will be unjust, unfair and oppressive.” It held that where the charges, evidence, and witnesses in the departmental and criminal proceedings are the same, and the criminal court has found no merit in the case, the disciplinary action cannot be sustained without independent and credible justification.
The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned proceedings dated 30.06.2015 in Enquiry No.2 of 2014 issued by the 2nd respondent. It directed as follows: “The petitioner shall be reinstated with all consequential benefits including seniority, notional promotions, fitment of salary and all other benefits.” The Court directed the 2nd respondent to complete the exercise within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. No order as to costs was made.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: V. R. Reddy Kovvuri, Advocate
For the Respondents: P. S. P. Suresh Kumar, Advocate; GP for Law & Legislative Affairs (AP)
Case Title: Bandreddy Raja Gopal Reddy v. High Court of Judicature Registrar (Vigilance) Hyderabad and Others
Neutral Citation: APHC010565932017
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 3995 of 2017
Bench: Justice R. Raghunandan Rao, Justice K. Manmadha Rao
[Read/Download order]
