(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the impugned proceedings impugned proceedings vide D.Dis.306/T2/2021 Dated.25.02.2022 of 2nd respondent rejecting the revision of the petitioner, proceedings C.No.C2/Appeal-45/2016 ROO No.841/2016 dated 15.12.2016 of 3rd respondent whereby rejected the appeal of the petitioner and proceedings C.No.46/OEPR/2015 dated 27.6.2016 of the 4th Respondent, whereby imposed the major punishment of removal from service as illegal, arbitrary, highly disproportionate one and contrary to the conduct rules and accordingly set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into se as police constable along with all consequential benefits that is treating the period of suspension as on duty and regularization of out of service period due to removal from service and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned proceedings D.Dis.306/T2/2021 Dated:25.02.2022, C.No.C2/Appeal-45/2016 ROO No.841/2016 dated 15.12.2016 and D.Dis.306/ T2/2021 dated:25.02.2022 and to pass such)

1. The Writ Petition is filed for the following reliefs:

                  “……….to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the impugned proceedings impugned proceedings vide D.Dis.306/T2/2021 Dated.25.02.2022 of 2nd respondent rejecting the revision of the petitioner, proceedings C.No.C2/Appeal-45/2016 ROO No.841/2016 dated 15.12.2016 of 3rd respondent whereby rejected the appeal of the petitioner and proceedings C.No.46/OEPR/2015 dated 27.6.2016 of the 4th Respondent, whereby imposed the major punishment of removal from service as illegal, arbitrary, highly disproportionate one and contrary to the conduct rules and accordingly set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into se as police constable along with all consequential benefits that is treating the period of suspension as on duty and regularization of out of service period due to removal from service……”

2. The facts of the case, as narrated by the petitioner in the writ petition, are briefly set out hereunder:

                  (i) Petitioner was recruited and appointed as a Police Constable in YSR Kadapa District in the year 2012. Since the date of his appointment, he has discharged his duties with utmost sincerity and devotion, to the satisfaction of his superior officers, and no adverse remarks were ever recorded against him. While petitioner was working as a Police Constable at Chakrayapet Police Station, YSR Kadapa District, respondent No.4 initiated disciplinary proceedings against him under Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (for short, ‘CCA Rules’), by issuing a Memorandum of Charges in C.No.46/OEPR/2015, dated 12.10.2015, alleging the following misconduct:

                  "Exhibited gross dereliction of duty and reprehensible misconduct to developed illegal intimacy with Smt. Mounika, W/o. Krupakar Isac of Kadapa, and on 17.02.2013, he and Mrs. Mounika went away taking huge amount of cash which was later recovered as Rs.13 lakhs and restored to Krupakar Isac. He is responsible for five deaths indirectly, is intolerable and inexcusable and the image of the Police Department has been tarnished in the eyes of general public and thereby violated rule 3(1) of the APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964."

                  (ii) The petitioner submits that he submitted a detailed explanation denying the allegations and specifically contending that the charges were false, baseless, and unsupported by any material evidence. However, without considering the said explanation, respondent No.4 proceeded with the departmental enquiry by appointing the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Pulivendula, as the Enquiry Officer, vide orders dated 12.10.2015. The Enquiry Officer, after conducting enquiry, submitted a report dated 26.04.2016 holding the charge as proved. The petitioner submits that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are perverse and based on surmises and conjectures, without any legally admissible evidence establishing the alleged misconduct.

                  (iii) The petitioner submits that, based on the enquiry report, respondent No.4 imposed the major penalty of removal from service vide proceedings in C.No.46/OEPR/2015, dated 27.06.2016. The said order does not contain any valid reasons for imposing such a severe punishment, particularly when there was no direct evidence supporting the allegations.

                  (iv) Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.3, which came to be rejected vide proceedings in C.No.C2/Appeal-45/2016, R.O.O.No.841/2016, dated 15.12.2016, without properly considering the grounds raised by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner initially approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1112 of 2017. However, during the pendency of the said proceedings, the petitioner withdrew the same with liberty to pursue the departmental remedy of revision. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred a revision before respondent No.2, which was rejected vide proceedings in D.Dis.No.306/T2/2021, dated 25.02.2022. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, and having no other efficacious remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the finding of misconduct against the petitioner is unsupported by evidence and is based on mere suspicion and hearsay. There were no eyewitnesses to establish the alleged intimacy or elopement and that the evidence of PW.1 and other witnesses does not implicate the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer relied upon irrelevant material, exceeded his role by examining and re-examining witnesses, and recorded a finding contrary to the evidence on record. The disciplinary authority, without proper appreciation of the material, mechanically imposed the punishment of removal from service, which is grossly disproportionate. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner was not arrayed as an accused in Crime No.121/2014 and was cited only as LW.26, indicating the absence of material connecting him with the alleged offence. Though the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is based on preponderance of probabilities, the same requires some acceptable evidence, which is absent in the present case. Hence, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside.

4. Respondent No.4 filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations of the petitioner and contending that the impugned proceedings were issued in accordance with the CCA Rules, 1991, after following due procedure. The respondents state that the petitioner, while serving as a Police Constable at Chennur Police Station, developed illicit relationship with Smt. Mounika, wife of Krupakar Isac, who was residing adjacent to the petitioner’s house at Kadapa. It is alleged that on 17.02.2013, the petitioner and Smt. Mounika went away along with cash of Rs.13,00,000/-, which was subsequently recovered. Based on the said allegations, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Rule 20 of the CCA Rules, 1991, for violation of Rule 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The Assistant Superintendent of Police, Pulivendula, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer, who, after conducting the enquiry wherein five witnesses were examined and documents were marked, submitted a report holding the charges proved. The enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner and his representation was considered by the disciplinary authority. Thereafter, the punishment of removal from service was imposed vide proceedings dated 27.06.2016. The appeal and revision preferred by the petitioner were rejected by the competent authorities on 15.12.2016 and 25.02.2022 respectively. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Director General, RPF v. Ch. Saibabu, the respondents contend that judicial interference with disciplinary punishment is limited and warranted only when the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct proved. Accordingly, the respondents seek dismissal of the Writ Petition.

5. Heard Sri S. Harinath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I.

6. The principal contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no evidence implicating the petitioner in the alleged misconduct. The disciplinary authority proceeded to impose the punishment in the absence of any legally admissible evidence establishing the petitioner's complicity in the alleged incident. No criminal case was registered against the petitioner. On the contrary, the petitioner was cited as a witness in the criminal case arising out of the death of the entire family of Krupakar Isac. Learned counsel further submits that there is no evidence whatsoever to substantiate the allegation of illicit intimacy between the petitioner and Smt. M. Mounika, W/o Krupakar Isac. Likewise, although it is alleged that a sum of Rs.13 lakhs was seized, no material or documentary evidence was produced before the Enquiry Officer to establish either the seizure of the said amount or its alleged connection with the petitioner. Except for the statement of PW.4, which merely refers to a rumor regarding the alleged illicit relationship, no evidence has been adduced to incriminate the petitioner. Even the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer clearly indicate the absence of substantive evidence. The Enquiry Officer observed that the oral evidence did not establish the allegations and further noted that there existed a property dispute among the family members of the deceased, pursuant to which a charge sheet had been filed before the competent criminal court. Insofar as the allegation of illicit intimacy is concerned, the Enquiry Officer himself recorded that it was based only on rumor. Despite recording these findings, the Enquiry Officer, while evaluating and appreciating the evidence, erroneously concluded that the charges stood proved on the basis of the testimonies of PWs.2, 4, and 5. A careful examination of the evidence of the said witnesses reveals that their statements merely refer to rumors regarding the alleged illicit intimacy and are, at best, hearsay in nature. No direct, reliable, or corroborative evidence has been brought on record to establish the petitioner's involvement in the alleged incident or to prove the misconduct alleged against him. In the absence of any legally acceptable evidence, the findings of guilt and the consequential punishment are wholly unsustainable.

7. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Rajaiah V. High Court for the State of Telangana (2026 SCC OnLine SC 190), wherein it held that:

                  44. In this case, the appellant was facing a grave charge of fabrication of the documents. When charges are grave, the caution and circumspection that should be exercised by the authorities should be greater. The appellant had joined service in 1998 as an attender. Ms. Sindoora, learned Counsel, has produced the copies of the service record of the appellant which shows that in 2011, he was awarded punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. It is not clear as to what was the charge that led to the penalty but whatever it is, the charge in the present disciplinary inquiry, being not established, that can have no bearing. Equally, the argument of Ms. Sindoora, that the rules provided for a mandatory penalty of dismissal also does not require further consideration since the charges themselves have not been established.

                  45. For the reasons stated above, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 12.02.2024 in WP No. 40486 of 2022 and allow the appeal. Consequently, the order of dismissal from service dated 13.11.2018 and the order of the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal dated 08.01.2021 will all stand set aside. The appellant shall be reinstated in service forthwith with all consequential benefits including all arrears of salary and emoluments since the non-employment was not due to the appellant's fault. The order should be implemented within three weeks from today. The appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.

8. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment makes it clear that, at the stage of framing charges, the authority is required to exercise a greater degree of caution and circumspection. Although the scope of judicial review over orders passed in disciplinary proceedings is limited, the courts are duty-bound to interfere where the findings are based on no evidence. If the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse or unsupported by any evidence on record, the decision of the disciplinary authority becomes amenable to judicial review. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, in a domestic inquiry or trial, it is ordinarily not open to the High Court or the Supreme Court to re-appreciate the evidence. However, where the findings are perverse, unsupported by the evidence on record, or are such that no reasonable person could have arrived at them on the basis of the available material, it is well within the jurisdiction of the High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court to interfere with the matter in the exercise of its power of judicial review.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank ((2009) 2 SCC 570), wherein it held as follows:

                  23. Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have been assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied upon the confession made by the appellant, there was no reason as to why the order of discharge passed by the criminal court on the basis of selfsame evidence should not have been taken into consideration. The materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of natural justice are. As the report of the enquiry officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inferences drawn by the enquiry officer apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion, as is well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be a substitute for legal proof.

10. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment reveals that the orders of the disciplinary and appellate authorities were unsustainable, as they were not supported by cogent reasons. The Enquiry Officer had relied upon the appellant's alleged confession without assigning any reason for disregarding the order of discharge passed by the criminal court on the basis of the very same statement. Although the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act are not applicable to departmental proceedings, the findings must nevertheless be based on legally acceptable evidence and the proceedings must conform to the principles of natural justice. Consequently, a finding founded merely on ipse dixit, surmises, and conjectures cannot be sustained in law.

11. Placing reliance on the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the evidence on record does not establish the petitioner's involvement in the alleged misconduct. Referring to the statements of PWs.1 to 5, as extracted in the enquiry report, it is contended that none of the witnesses has supported the allegations in the charge memorandum. The only allegation against the petitioner pertains to the alleged payment of Rs.13 lakhs by the wife of Krupakar Isaac, which rests solely on hearsay and remains unsubstantiated. None of the witnesses are eyewitness to the alleged incident and that the petitioner was never arrayed as an accused in Crime No.121 of 2024, registered in connection with the deaths of Krupakar Isaac and his family members. Therefore, there is no material to connect the petitioner with the alleged misconduct. The disciplinary proceedings culminating in the petitioner's removal from service are unsupported by legally acceptable evidence. Therefore, even if the charges are assumed to have been established, the punishment of removal from service is grossly disproportionate to the allegations and is therefore liable to be set aside.

12. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are based on the evidence available on record. PW.4, the Investigating Officer, deposed regarding the alleged illicit intimacy between the petitioner and late Mounika, W/o Krupakar Isaac, as revealed during the investigation, and also regarding handing over of Rs.13 lakhs by Mounika to the petitioner. The said aspect is also supported by the evidence of PW.2. PWs.3 and 4 further referred to the information furnished by PW.2, Ramanjaneya Reddy, regarding the alleged relationship and the steps allegedly taken by Krupakar Isaac to eliminate the petitioner through a road accident. The Enquiry Officer, after appreciating the evidence in its proper perspective, recorded that the family of Krupakar Isac was residing in a rented house adjacent to the petitioner's residence and that the petitioner had admitted his close acquaintance with Mounika and her family. Relying on the evidence of PWs.2, 4, and 5, the Enquiry Officer concluded that the petitioner, being a responsible public servant, had developed illicit relationship with Mounika, which allegedly resulted in Krupakar Isac murdering his wife and three children and thereafter committing suicide. Thus, the charged officer was held indirectly responsible for five deaths, which is intolerable and inexcusable, and the image of the police has been tarnished in the eyes of General Public. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that this is not a case of no evidence and that sufficient material exists to establish the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged incident. Considering the gravity of the charges, the judgments relied upon by the petitioner have no application to the facts of the present case.

13. It is well settled that the scope of judicial review in matters arising out of disciplinary proceedings is extremely limited. However, the constitutional courts are justified in exercising their power of judicial review where the findings are based on no evidence, are perverse, or are unsupported by any material available on record. In such circumstances, judicial intervention becomes imperative to ensure that the decision-making process is fair, lawful, and free from arbitrariness, and that the findings recorded do not result in a miscarriage of justice.

14. In the present case, the petitioner was serving as a Police Constable and, being a member of a disciplined force, was expected to maintain the highest standards of integrity and conduct. The charge against him was that he had developed illicit relationship with Mounika, the wife of late Krupakar Isac. It is an undisputed fact that Krupakar Isac killed his wife and children before committing suicide, resulting in the loss of five lives. The Enquiry Officer, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, recorded a finding that the petitioner's conduct had indirectly contributed to the said incident and had brought disrepute to the police department in the eyes of the public. The evidence of PW.4, the Investigating Officer, coupled with the evidence of PW.5, the Preliminary Enquiry Officer, discloses that while the petitioner was posted at Chennur Police Station, his family and the family of Krupakar Isac were residing in adjacent houses. During that period, the petitioner allegedly developed illicit relationship with Mounika by taking advantage of the matrimonial discord between the spouses. It was also brought on record that the petitioner frequently accompanied Mounika on his motorcycle and spent money on her. It also came in evidence that on 17.02.2013, the petitioner and Mounika allegedly left together with Rs.13,00,000/-, which was recovered on the following day. PW.2 deposed to the said fact, and PW.4 corroborated the same by stating that the amount was recovered from the petitioner's residence. The enquiry further revealed that, owing to the alleged relationship, Krupakar Isac felt deeply humiliated and had, through Ramanjaneya Reddy, enlisted the assistance of Ramanjaneyulu Naik and Bhanu Prathap, besides purchasing a Scorpio vehicle with the alleged intention of eliminating the petitioner by staging a road accident. Ultimately, Krupakar Isac killed his wife and children before taking his own life. On the basis of the above evidence, the Enquiry Officer concluded that the charge stood proved and that the petitioner's conduct was unbecoming of a member of the police force.

15. The evidence of PW.4, a material witness, specifically reveals that, during the course of investigation, it came to light that the petitioner (PC No.2758) had developed illicit relationship with Mounika, W/o late Krupakar Isac. PW.4 further deposed that on 17.02.2023, the petitioner and Mounika allegedly left together with Rs.13,00,000/-, which was recovered from them on the following day. The alleged relationship, coupled with the said incident, caused Krupakar Isac immense humiliation, which ultimately led him to kill his wife and children before committing suicide. The mere contention that the alleged illicit relationship was only a rumour cannot, by itself, be construed to mean that there was no evidence before the Enquiry Officer to substantiate the allegation. In fact, during his re-examination, PW.4 stated that, as per the statement of A.1, namely, Ramanjaneya Reddy, Krupakar Isac and his family were residing adjacent to the petitioner's family. He further deposed that Mounika used to contact the petitioner's mother and had entrusted an amount of Rs.13,00,000/- to the petitioner, which she received back after four days. These circumstances indicate the close association between the petitioner's family and that of Krupakar Isac.

16. It is well settled that an illicit relationship cannot ordinarily be established by direct or documentary evidence. It has to be inferred from the surrounding circumstances, the conduct of the parties, and the attendant facts, since direct evidence of such acts is seldom available. Even the statement of the petitioner indicates the close association between his family and that of late Krupakar Isac, including Mounika. The explanation submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the proceedings of the disciplinary authority dated 27.06.2016 also refers to the proximity of the two families, the close acquaintance of Mounika with the petitioner's family, and the allegation relating to the entrustment of Rs.13,00,000/-. In that view of the matter, the contention that there is no evidence regarding the recovery of Rs.13,00,000/-from the petitioner cannot be accepted. Merely because the amount was not produced before the Enquiry Officer does not, by itself, discredit the evidence, particularly when the recovery formed part of the investigation in the criminal case. Likewise, the contention that the petitioner was not arrayed as an accused in the criminal case is of no avail. The criminal case was registered in connection with the deaths of five persons, and the question whether the petitioner was prosecuted therein is wholly distinct from the disciplinary proceedings. The scope of a departmental enquiry is independent of a criminal prosecution, and the absence of the petitioner's arraignment as an accused cannot, by itself, negate the allegations of misconduct levelled against him.

17. The disciplinary authority, upon considering the enquiry report, the representation submitted by the petitioner, and the material available on record, passed a reasoned order holding that the charges of grave dereliction of duty and reprehensible misconduct stood proved and, accordingly, imposed the penalty of removal from service. The appellate and revisional authorities, upon independent consideration of the matter, confirmed the said order.

18. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner, being a Police Constable and a member of a disciplined force, was expected to maintain the highest standards of integrity and conduct. The findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are based on evidence available on record and cannot be said to be perverse or based on no evidence. Once there is some evidence to support the findings, this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot re-appreciate the evidence as an appellate authority. Consequently, the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, as affirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities, does not warrant interference.

19. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.