AP High Court Upholds Police Officer's Pay Reduction For Concealing Misfire, Says Negligence In Duty Can't Be Condoned

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the punishment imposed on an Andhra Pradesh Special Police (APSP) Reserve Inspector for failing to report an accidental firing incident involving a constable.

The punishment involved reduction of pay by one stage for one year, with cumulative effect on future increments and pension.

The disciplinary charge alleged a violation of Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which requires government servants to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and to conduct themselves in a manner befitting public service.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Balaji Medamalli observed that negligence, slackness, complacency or an indifferent attitude in the discharge of duties cannot be countenanced, particularly when it involves withholding information about an incident of a serious nature.

The Court observed:

“Having considered the submissions made on either side, perused the records placed before this Court, and the judgments relied upon by the petitioner, this Court finds that the enquiry officer has categorically dealt with all the evidence available against the petitioner and arrived at a conclusion that the writ petitioner had intentionally withheld and concealed the information regarding the misfire incident, despite having knowledge of the same. The findings recorded by the enquiry officer disclose that the petitioner was informed about the incident by RSI Sri P.Chandra Rao through his mobile phone, as stated in his evidence before the enquiry officer. The call detail records produced by him in support of such communication also remained unrebutted. The said evidence, coupled with the statement given by the petitioner during the preliminary enquiry and the explanation submitted by him subsequent to the enquiry report, clearly establishes that the petitioner was aware of the misfire incident and had deliberately failed to bring the same to the notice of the higher authorities.

It is pertinent to note that a person belonging to the Armed Forces is expected to maintain the highest standards of discipline, diligence, and responsibility while discharging his duties. Any act of negligence, slackness, complacency, or indifferent attitude in the performance of duties cannot be countenanced, particularly when it relates to withholding information regarding an incident of such nature. This Court, upon considering the entire material available on record, does not find any reasonable grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing the punishment of reduction of time scale of pay (RTSP) by one stage for a period of one year with cumulative effect on future increments and pension, besides treating the suspension period of 182 days, from 27.05.2015 to 25.11.2015, as “Not on Duty”, which was subsequently confirmed by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority…”

The dispute arose after a police constable in the APSP allegedly mishandled a loaded magazine while cleaning arms. A magazine is a device that holds ammunition and feeds cartridges into a firearm. The incident occurred during an arms-cleaning exercise and resulted in the accidental firing of two rounds of 7.62 mm SLR ammunition into the air.

According to the charge, several personnel informed the petitioner, who was the Officer Commanding of “D” Company and was stationed at the battalion headquarters, about the incident over the phone. The charge alleged that, despite being informed, he failed to take appropriate action or report the incident to his superior officers, thereby deliberately keeping the higher authorities unaware of what had happened.

The charge further alleged that the petitioner had offered to manage the matter with senior officers in exchange for money. The disciplinary proceedings, however, centred on his alleged inaction, slack supervision and concealment of the misfire incident.

Following a departmental inquiry, the charge of concealing the incident was found proved. The disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of reduction in pay by one stage for one year, with cumulative effect on future increments and pension. It also directed that the petitioner's 182-day suspension period be treated as “not on duty”.

Aggrieved by the punishment, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority. Although the appeal was dismissed as time-barred, the authority also examined the matter on merits and upheld the punishment. The petitioner then approached the revisional authority, which rejected his revision.

After the disciplinary, appellate and revisional authorities declined to interfere with the punishment, the petitioner approached the High Court by filing the present writ petition, challenging the orders and seeking consequential benefits, including treating his suspension period as duty.

Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the charges were vague, no specific charge had been framed regarding the alleged demand for money, and the inquiry officer had travelled beyond their scope. He also questioned reliance on call detail records without call recordings or voice messages and contended that the punishment was disproportionate.

The State countered that the charges had to be read with the statement of imputations. It submitted that the petitioner knew of the incident but failed to report it to his superiors, relying on call detail records and inconsistencies in his statements to support the departmental inquiry's findings.

The High Court found that the inquiry officer had considered the evidence on record and that the call detail records supporting communication between the relevant persons remained unrebutted. The petitioner's preliminary inquiry statement and subsequent explanation also supported the finding that he knew about the incident but deliberately failed to report it.

Further, the Court noted that the petitioner had raised no serious objections to the inquiry report before the disciplinary, appellate or revisional authorities. It reiterated that, under Article 226 of the Constitution, it could not reappreciate departmental evidence as an appellate authority.

Finding no grounds for interference, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, vacated the interim orders and closed the pending miscellaneous petitions.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Harinath Reddy Somagutta

Counsel for the Respondents: Government Pleader for Services