In a noteworthy decision, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed the disciplinary penalty imposed on a police constable, emphasizing that “a decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible.” The case, involving allegations of corruption against G. Srikanth, a police constable, raised critical questions about the adherence to the principles of natural justice and the adequacy of evidence in departmental proceedings.
Case Background
The case, Writ Petition No. 15720 of 2019, was filed by G. Srikanth, a police constable from Ananthapur District, challenging the disciplinary action taken against him. The petitioner was accused of demanding “Matka Mamool” (illegal gambling money) from a civilian, Jelli Peddanna, in 2008 while serving at Guntakal I Town Police Station. The charge led to Srikanth’s suspension, followed by an internal inquiry that culminated in a penalty of postponement of increments for two years, with repercussions on future increments and pension.
The petitioner argued that the inquiry was based on uncorroborated allegations and was conducted in a biased manner. He contended that the disciplinary authorities acted arbitrarily, violating the principles of natural justice, and that the penalty imposed was not supported by clear evidence.
Legal Proceedings and Court’s Analysis
The case was heard by Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa at the Andhra Pradesh High Court. K.R. Srinivas, representing Srikanth, contended that the disciplinary action was grounded in speculative findings by the inquiry officer. The respondents, represented by the Government Pleader for Services-I, included senior police officials and the State of Andhra Pradesh.
Key Legal Issues
1. Adequacy of Evidence: The primary legal issue was whether the evidence presented during the inquiry was sufficient to justify the imposition of a major penalty on Srikanth.
2. Adherence to Natural Justice: Srikanth claimed that the inquiry officer failed to follow natural justice principles, as his defence, including medical leave records, was not properly considered.
3. Legality of the Disciplinary Process: The court examined whether the disciplinary authorities acted within the bounds of established rules, particularly in terms of reasoning and evidentiary support for their decision.
Contentions and Evidence
– Petitioner’s Arguments:
– Srikanth maintained that he was on medical leave for chickenpox during the alleged dates of misconduct, substantiating this with medical records.
– The complainant, P.W.1 (Jelli Peddanna), denied that Srikanth had demanded money and stated that his earlier statement, recorded by the police, was made without full awareness of its contents.
– Srikanth alleged that the inquiry officer’s conclusions were based on mere assumptions rather than concrete evidence.
– He argued that the disciplinary authorities did not provide adequate reasoning while upholding the penalty.
– Respondents’ Stand:
– The respondents defended the disciplinary action, arguing that the inquiry was conducted according to the procedural norms and that the penalty was proportionate to the misconduct alleged.
– They contended that Srikanth’s medical records were not credible enough to establish his absence from the alleged site of misconduct.
– The government pleader suggested that if the court deemed the inquiry flawed, the matter could be remanded for reconsideration.
Key Observations by the Court
In a detailed judgment, Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa highlighted significant shortcomings in the inquiry process:
1. Insufficient Evidence:
– The court found that the findings of the inquiry officer were inconsistent with the material on record. It noted that the complainant, P.W.1, not only failed to corroborate the allegations but also testified that he never paid any money to Srikanth.
– The court observed: “The findings of the Enquiry Officer are contrary to the record, which was not interfered with at the appellate stage or in revision. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible.”
2. Violation of Natural Justice:
– The court emphasized that while the Evidence Act may not be strictly applicable in departmental proceedings, the principles of natural justice must still be followed.
– It criticized the inquiry officer’s reliance on assumptions, stating that “the order of the Enquiry Officer was based on surmises and conjectures,” rendering the decision legally unsustainable.
3. Lack of Reasoning in Orders:
– The disciplinary and appellate authorities’ orders were found to lack adequate reasoning, which is essential when imposing severe financial penalties.
– The judgment underscored that decisions with significant financial consequences must be backed by clear, reasoned findings.
Court’s Final Decision
The High Court ruled that the disciplinary order against Srikanth lacked legal foundation and was liable to be set aside. It quashed the penalty of postponement of increments, stating that it was unjustified given the absence of reliable evidence. The court declared:
“The imposition of such a major penalty requires strict adherence to procedural fairness and legally admissible evidence. The inquiry must not be based on surmises and conjectures but on substantial evidence that establishes misconduct beyond reasonable doubt.”
Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition filed by Srikanth, reversing the disciplinary action taken against him. It further directed that the suspension period should be treated as duty, restoring his increments and pension benefits.
