Why Separate Rules for Police? Ex- TGSPDCL Engineer’s Wife Questions ACB Action

Hyderabad: The wife of a former power department engineer, arrested following an ACB raid last year, has alleged that investigators were following different procedures in similar cases and compared it with the case of DSP Bheem Reddy.

D.R. Tabita, wife of Ambedkar Erugu, urged the Director-General of the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) to review the disproportionate assets case against her husband, alleging that investigators followed a different legal procedure.

Erugu was an assistant divisional engineer with the Telangana Southern Power Distribution Company Limited (TGSPDCL). He was remanded to 36 days in judicial custody

According to her, Bheem Reddy was issued a notice under Section 35 (3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and was neither arrested nor remanded to judicial custody. The ACB reported finding assets valued at Rs 200 crore by market value with Bheem Reddy, DSP posted in the DGP office, earlier this week. He has since been hospitalised following complaints of high BP and cardiac issues.

On September 16, 2025, ACB officials conducted searches in the DA case against Eurgu, where they discovered assets, including properties, vehicles, gold, bank deposits and cash. Officials estimated that the market value of the assets was over Rs 200 crore and stated that the assets were allegedly acquired by misusing his official position.

Tabita alleged that despite fully cooperating with investigators by voluntarily disclosing his financial details and submitting all the documents, her husband was arrested and was subjected to 36 days in judicial custody. She claimed that the arrest caused severe emotional, social and financial hardship to the family.

Questioning why the same procedural safeguard was not extended to her husband, Tabita argued that the different approach created an impression of unequal treatment. Citing Article 14 of the Constitution, she said authorities must apply legal safeguards equally, irrespective of a person's official position, influence, social status or economic standing.

In a press release, she stated that Bheem Reddy was not remanded and was given “preferential elite treatment towards internal police infrastructure”. Citing other cases, she alleged that “selective departmental immunity from custodial protection” was given to Gundeti Ramu, a prohibition and excise inspector who was also booked in a DA case.

She alleged that “revenue official denied the procedural insulation given to police elites” in the case against Shamirpet tahsildar T. Sucharita, and “full enforcement actions applied outside the protected elite circle” in the case against district prohibition and excise officer K. Mallareddy.

She stated that her family belonged to the Scheduled Caste community and did not have political or influential backing, but has continued to place its faith in the Constitution and the justice system.

Tabita requested the ACB Director General to examine the reasons for the alleged difference in treatment, stating that such a review would strengthen fairness, transparency and public confidence in the ACB. She also called for an objective review of the disproportionate case against her husband, and requested appropriate action if the prosecution was found to be legally unsustainable.