HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.26326 of 2007 DATE: 11.06.2014 Between:
P. Yadagiri Rao ... Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Hyderabad & others … Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.26326 of 2007 ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the 4th respondent.
2. This writ petition was filed challenging the action of the respondents, particularly, the 4th respondent in taking law into his hands and abusing his office to an extent of spoiling the career of the petitioner and seeking further direction to respondents 1 to 3 to initiate serious disciplinary proceedings against the 4th respondent by duly framing charges against him for misconduct and punish him suitably. In support of his case, the petitioner cited three cases involving immovable property. He was acquitted in all cases. It is his contention that due to false implication in those cases, his reputation was affected and he submitted a representation to the Home Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh on 05.07.2006 bringing to his notice the alleged acts of abuse of position of the 4th respondent and requested him to enquire and to take serious departmental action. He also filed copies of the judgments in the cases where he was shown as accused.
3. The 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit admitting that the petitioner made a representation to the 1st respondent on 11.07.2006 and the same was forwarded to the 2nd respondent directing him to take necessary action and report to the Government. Another reminder was issued on 21.01.2008 directing the 2nd respondent to send action taken report. On receipt of the Memo dated 21.01.2008, an enquiry was ordered by the 2nd respondent to be conducted by the Additional DCP, Administration, Cyberabad. The Additional DCP, Administration called for the crime records pertaining to the allegations made by the petitioner against the 4th respondent and after conducting enquiry, he submitted a report on 16.02.2008 to the 2nd respondent. After perusing various incidents cited by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent opined that the 4th respondent lawfully acted on the complaints filed against the petitioner and investigated the cases. It was also stated that the petitioner made a representation on similar allegations against the 4th respondent to the Vigilance Commissioner, A.P. Vigilance Commission and the same was endorsed to the Inspector General of Police, Hyderabad Region. On receipt of the said petition, the Inspector General of Police, conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted a report to the Director General of Police on 18.02.007. The Inspector General of Police, Hyderabad Region, in her report to the Director General of Police mentioned that “taking departmental action against 4th respondent for registering cases wherein specific complaints have been received may not be justified. Hence, further action may be dropped”. Ultimately, the 2nd respondent opined that the 4th respondent has not misused his official position as the S.H.O., Nacharam PS.
4. The 4th respondent himself filed a separate counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner sent a telegram on 31.03.1998 to this Court, which was taken up as WP No.9418 of 1998. The petitioner made allegations against the Superintendent of Police, Ranga Reddy district only and not whispered any allegations against the 4th respondent. He submitted that in the capacity of the S.H.O., Nacharam PS, he did not misuse his official position while taking complaints against the petitioner.
5. The petitioner did not file any reply-affidavit disputing the averments made in the counter-affidavit by the 2nd respondent and 4th respondent.
6. It is clear from the averments made in the counter-affidavits that two enquiries were initiated against the 4th respondent i.e., one by the Additional DCP, Administration and another by the Inspector General of Police, who came to the conclusion that the 4th respondent has not misused his position while acting as S.H.O., Nacharam PS. However, learned counsel for the petitioner states that very initiation of complaints against the petitioner was at the behest of the 4th respondent and the 4th respondent has misused his official position. On the face of the averments in the counter-affidavits, such raring enquiry cannot be initiated in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In any event, the relief sought by the petitioner for conducting enquiry by Respondents 1 to 3 and against 4th respondent was already done by the higher officers and the petitioner cannot have any grievance so far as the relief sought in the writ petition is concerned.
7. In the circumstances, there are no merits in the writ petition and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. But the dismissal of the writ petition cannot prevent the petitioner from pursuing any remedies that are available to him under law. Pending miscellaneous petitions in this writ petition, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No order as to costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J
Date: 11.06.2014 BSS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO 7 WRIT PETITION No.26326 of 2007 Date: 11.06.2014 BSS