Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Removal Of Officer From Police Service For Misbehaviour With Lady Officer:

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the removal of a Junior Assistant from the Andhra Pradesh Special Police (APSP) battalion for misbehaving and attempting to outrage the modesty of a lady officer.

The Bench comprising of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Dr. K. Manmadha Rao, while adjudicating a petition filed in C. Govinda Rajulu v. State of A.P., was hearing a writ petition filed by an Ex-Junior Assistant in the APSP, challenging the order of his removal from service issued by the Disciplinary Authority (upheld by the Appellate Authority), while citing grave procedural irregularities in inquiry.  

BACKGROUND FACTS

The Petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in 2nd Battalion, APSP, Kurnool on 17.08.1994. He was placed under suspension on 22.05.2013, on the allegation of misbehaviour with another lady junior assistant. However, he was reinstated into service and a charge memo dated 03.06.2013 was issued. In the departmental enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority observed that though the case is fit for dismissal from service, however, while taking a lenient view, it passed an order of punishment for the removal of the Petitioner from service with immediate effect. The Petitioner‟s suspension period was treated as not on duty.

The Petitioner challenged the order of removal while contending that as per Rule 3-D of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964, ("APCS Rules") a Complaints Committee is to be constituted which would be deemed as the Inquiry Authority. However, the Disciplinary Authorities themselves appointed an Enquiry Officer. Thus, the Petitioner could not be prosecuted on the basis of the report submitted by such an Enquiry Officer. He further contended that his conviction was void of evidence and the punishment was disproportionate. 

The State contended that the Petitioner never raised the plea of procedural irregularities at any point before and the same could not be considered at this juncture. Further, the Petitioner was given ample chance of hearing and given the seriousness of the crime, the punishment is fitting.

HIGH COURT VERDICT

The issue before the Court was whether the enquiry by the Enquiry Officer (Assistant Commandant, 2nd Battalion, APSP Kurnool) is without jurisdiction in view of the plea of Rule 3-D of APCS (Conduct) Rules 1964? and on such an enquiry report, the order of penalty could not be passed by the Disciplinary Authority? 

The Court observed that under the A.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1991 ("Rules 1991"), the procedure of enquiry was provided. So, even if the enquiry was not got conducted by the Complaints Committee, if any such committee existed, then no prejudice is caused to the Petitioner if the enquiry was conducted by an Enquiry Officer appointed by the Disciplinary Authority under Rule 20 of the Rules 1991.

"If the Complaints Committee existed the most that may be said, is that the matter should have been enquired by such Committee under Rule 3-D of the APCS (Conduct) Rules 1964, but if it was so, the petitioner ought to have raised such objection at the stage of enquiry itself, whereas no such objection was taken at any stage. After the disciplinary proceedings have gone against the petitioner, he cannot be permitted to take a „U‟ turn and say that the enquiry was not conducted by the Complaints Committee under Rule 3-D of the APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964."

Further, the Court observed that the Petitioner never raised the plea of non-compliance of Rule 3D of the APSC Rules during trial or arguments. Therefore, the Court is not at fault for ignoring a 'not pressed' argument. "Consequently, we are of the view that the Tribunal did not commit any illegality in not considering a plea which was not pressed before it."

Over a co-joint reading of the Vishaka Guidelines and the APSP Rules, the Court has held, "If the Complaints Committee was not constituted, the Vishaka guidelines providing for such Committee in complaint mechanism, where necessary, the enquiry was to be conducted by the Enquiry Officer under the Rules 1991. Such an enquiry having been conducted by the Enquiry Officer under the Rules 1991 there would be no illegality."

The Court further considered that as per the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 and Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013, some benefits have been created for the charged officer after the complainant, such as opportunity of settlement and opportunity to appeal against the findings of the Enquiry Committee. However, none would be applicable to the present case as the offence was committed prior to the enactment.

The Court observed that there were prior complaints existing against the charged officer and in the present case two eye-witnesses confirmed the occurrence of the incident, and by no stretch could it be said that the conclusion arrived at by the Authority was void of evidence and punishment disappropriate.

"The disciplinary authority has already shown leniency in imposing punishment, though in our view, in such matters, such leniency ought not to have been shown...We are satisfied that the punishment imposed is not disproportionate, much less shockingly disproportionate, and does not touch our conscious, so as to impose a lesser punishment."

The writ petition has been dismissed. 

Case Title: C. Govinda Rajulu v. State of A.P.

Case No.: WRIT PETITION No. 36081 of 2017

Counsel for the Petitioner: Manoj Kumar Bethapudi, Representing Vijaya Kumar Sata

Counsel for the Respondents: G. V. S. Kishore Kumar, GP for Services-I

Click Here To Read/Download Order