http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  499 of 2008

PETITIONER: Deputy Inspector General of Police & Anr.

RESPONDENT: K.Ravinder Rao

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/01/2008

BENCH: A.K. MATHUR & H.S.BEDI

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  

{Arising out of S.L.P.(c) No.18176 of 2006]                                      A.K.MATHUR,J.

1.      Delay condoned.

2.      Leave granted.

3.     This appeal is directed against the order passed by  the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court  whereby the Division Bench of the High Court has set aside  the order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and directed  reinstatement of the respondent with 50% back wages.  Aggrieved against this order the present appeal has been  filed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hyderabad  Range and another. 4.              Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of  this appeal are the respondent herein was appointed as a  Police Constable in 1979 and while he was working as such  at Uppal Police-Station he was placed under suspension on  9.5.1985 on the ground that he visited the house of one  Smt. Kamasani Susheela  in a drunken state and demanded  her to provide girls for satisfying his sexual lust and  when she refused, the respondent scuffled with her. When  she raised alarm another Police Constable, Jagan Mohan  Reddy, who was on picket duty rushed there and pulled the  respondent from the house. On this misconduct by the  respondent an inquiry was conducted by serving a proper  charge-sheet. The Inquiring Officer after hearing both the  parties, found the respondent guilty and thereafter, his  explanation was called for as to why he should not be  removed from service. Subsequently he was removed from  service by order dated 1.10.1993. Then he filed an appeal  before the appellate authority. That was rejected by order  dated 30.4.1994. After that the respondent challenged that  order by filing an original application being O.A.No.1489  of 1994 before the Administrative Tribunal. The  Administrative Tribunal also affirmed the impugned order  of removal from service. Aggrieved against that the  respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court and  the grievance of the respondent was that he was not  afforded sufficient opportunity, the documents were not  given to him and the finding of the Inquiring Officer was  perverse and unsustainable. The writ petition was opposed  by the appellants before the High Court. The High Court  after reviewing the evidence and after going through the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

statement of P.W.2, Smt. Kamasani Susheela and the  statement of P.W.3, her sister and other two constables on  duty, found  the charges established but the High Court  observed that the Inquiring Officer  has given too much  importance on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 12 who were his  superior officers. But the High Court found that there was  no evidence that the respondent went to the house of Smt.  Kamasani Susheela in a drunken state as alleged.  But at  the same time the High Court observed that there was some  evidence that the respondent misbehaved with P.W.2. The  Division Bench of the High Court held that imposition of  punishment of removal from service was certainly  disproportionate. The Division Bench of the High Court  further observed that the finding of the disciplinary  authority appeared to be perverse and the evidence has not  been properly evaluated in its proper perspective.  Consequently, the High Court set aside the order of the  Tribunal as well as the order of the Inquiring Officer and  directed reinstatement of the respondent in service as he  has been out from service for 12 years i.e. since 1993 and   directed payment of 50% of back wages. The High Court  observed that this may not be treated as a precedent in  future. Aggrieved against this impugned order of the High  Court the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 5.              We have heard learned counsel for the parties and  perused the records. We have gone through the order passed  by the Tribunal as well as the Inquiring Officer.  We  regret that the view taken by the High Court does not  appear to be well founded. It is unfortunate that a Police  Constable who is supposed to safeguard the public makes  such a unreasonable demand on going to someone\022s house for  satisfying his sensual lust. It is disgrace in uniform.  The Tribunal has examined the matter in detail and after  considering the matter affirmed the order of removal of  the respondent. The Tribunal has also found that the  findings given by the Inquiring Officer are sound and  proper. The Tribunal examined the evidence and found that  the testimony of P.W.2 has been corroborated by the  evidence of P.W.3, Smt. Kamasani Laxmi and P.W.1, Circle  Inspector of Police, who submitted a report finding the  allegation true. P.Ws.7 & 9, both Constables supported the  version of P.W.2. The Circle Inspector investigated the  matter further and confirmed the incident that the  respondent misbehaved with Smt. Kamasani Susheela and he  was in a drunken condition so much so that when the  respondent went to the Doctor for some medical treatment  at the relevant time the Doctor declined to administer  injection as the respondent was drunk. Therefore, all the  evidence has been again examined by the Tribunal in  objective manner and rightly affirmed the report of the  Inquiring Officer.  6.              It is strange that the High Court sitting under  Article 226 of the Constitution of India re-appreciated  the evidence and came to a different conclusion which is  not within the scope of the High Court. The finding given  by the Inquiring Officer has been affirmed in appeal and  the same having been examined by the Tribunal in  threadbare there was no justification for the High Court  to come to its own conclusion when there was concurrent  finding given by the Inquiring Officer and the Tribunal.   But the High Court appreciated the whole evidence which  was unwarranted.  The respondent was drunk as is apparent  from the testimony of the Doctor to whom the appellant had  approached for some treatment and wanted to administer  injection  but having seen him in a drunken state the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

Doctor declined. This is sufficient to prove  that the  appellant was drunk. Secondly, when the testimony of  Smt.Kamasani Laxmi, supported by two beat Constables as  well as by the Circle Inspector that the respondent went  to the house of Smt. Kamasani Susheela and approached her  for providing some girls to satisfy his sensual lust, the  High Court went wrong in recording its finding. Time and  again this Court has emphasized that under Article 226 of  the Constitution of India, appreciation of evidence should  not be done in matters of this nature unless the finding  appears to be perverse. In the present case the finding  having been examined in detail by the Tribunal and the  Tribunal also having found no perversity in the finding of  the Inquiring Officer, we fail to appreciate the approach  of the High Court. Hence, we allow this appeal and set  aside the order of the High Court and confirm the order of  the Tribunal. There would be no order as to costs.