WP/8588/2017 of RADHIKA JAISWAL D/o. Sri.R.Dilip Kumar Jaiswal, Vs THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE on 30 December 2021

1. Report sent [in ][Dis.No'S740, ][dated ][16 ][07'2014' ][from]the Principal [District ][Judge, Rangareddy']the Principal [District ][Judge, Rangareddy']

2. Detailed [special ][report sent ][in ][Dis'No'5922' ][dated]22.07 .2014 from [the ][Principal ][District ][Judge ]'RangareddY.22.07 .2014 from [the ][Principal ][District ][Judge ]'RangareddY.

ARTIC LES [O][FC]HARGE No.2:

That [you ][Mrs. ][Radhika ][Jaiswal, Principal ][Junior]Civil Judge-cum-VIII [Metropolitan ][Magistrate']at [Rajendernagar, ][Rangareddy ][district' ][as]Cyberabad such, having [been ][advised ][by the ][Principal District]Judge, Rangareddy [and Metropolitan ][Sessions ][Judge']Cyberabad [ora11y, ][to ][discontinue ][the ][services ][of ][the]home [guard ][as ][your ][personal ][driver, you ][did not ][mend]your ways and [continued ][to ][avail ][the ][services ][of ][home]guard for driving [your ][personal ][car ][for ][official ][and]unoflicial [purposes, unauthorizedly ][and ][misused ][your]official [position and ][acted ][in ][such ][a ][manner ][giving ][a]go-bye to the advice [of the ][superiors, ][which ][a ][judicial]not [to ][have done, ][which act ][of ][yours ][if]officer ought proved or established [would ][amount ][to ][grave]misconduct, [unbecoming ][of ][a ][judicial ][officer ][within ][the]\

meaning of Rule 3 of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct)Rules 1964.

BASIS OF CHARGE:

1. Report sent in Dis.No.5740, dated 16.07.2014, fromthe Principal District Judge, Rangareddy.the Principal District Judge, Rangareddy.

2. Detailed special report sent in Dis.No.5922, dated22.O7 .2014 from the Principal District Judge,Rangareddy.22.O7 .2014 from the Principal District Judge,Rangareddy.

ARTICLES OF CHARGE No.3:

That you Mrs. Radhika Jaiswal, Principal JuniorCivil Judge-cum-VIII Metropolitan Magistrate,Cyberabad at Rajendernagar, Rangareddy district,while working as Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Kamareddy, Nizamabad district, from 01.01.2011 tillyour transfer, had also availed the services of a HomeGuard-Driver, as provided by the police department todrive your personal car for official and unoffrcialpurposes, unauthorizedly and misused your officialposition and acted in such a manner, which a judicialofficer ought not to have done, which act of yours ifproved or established would amount to gravemisconduct, unbecoming of a [judicial ]officer within themeaning of Ruie 3 of A. P. Civil Services (Conduct)Rules 1964.

BASIS OF CHARGE:

1. Report sent in Dis.No.5740, dated 16.07.2014, fromthe Principal District Judge, Rangareddy.the Principal District Judge, Rangareddy.

2. Detailed special report sent in Dis.No.5922, dated22.07.2014 from the Principal District Judge,Rangareddy.22.07.2014 from the Principal District Judge,Rangareddy.

ARTICLES OF CHARGE No.4:

That you Mrs. Radhika Jaisrval, Principal JuniorCivil Judge-cum-VlII Metropolitan Magistrate,Cyberabad at Rajendernagar, Rangareddy district, assuch, as against the High Court's circular instructionsissued in Roc.No.2399/OP.Ce1l.E/2011, dated B-B- 201 1 and [subsequent ][instructions ][issued from ][time ][to]time to all [the ][Judicial ][Officers ][in ][the ][State ][to]maintain [the ][timings of the ][bench ][strictiy ][from ][10:30]a.m., to [2:00 p.m ], [and from 2:30 ][p'm'' ][to ][5:00 ][p'm"]the [oral ][instructions ][of ][the ][Metropolitan]despite Sessions Judge, [Cyberabad ][and ][without ][applying ][for]half-a-day's [leave ][for ][leaving ][earlier ][or ][going ][late to ][the]court, [have ][applied ][for ][permission ][to ][leave ][the ][court]'one hour [earlier ][at ][4:00 ][p ][m' ]' [on ][|O-O4-2O14 ]to [go ][to ][the court ][one ][hour late ][at ][1 ][1:30]permission a.m., and [leave ][one ][hour ][earlier ][at ][4:0O p ][m'' ][on ][17-]05-2014 and [leave ][the court ][half-an-hour earlier ][at]4:30 p.m., [on 03-06-2014, ][thus, in utter ][disobedience]to the High [Court's ][circular instructions ][acted ][in ][such]a manner [amounting to ][dereliction ][of ][duties' ][r'"'hich ][a]judicial officer ought [not ][to ][have ][done' ][which ][act ][of]yours if proved [or ][establishcd ][would amount to ][grave]misconduct, [unbecoming of ][a ][judicial ][oflicer ][within ][the]of [Rule ][3 ][of ][A'P ][Civil ][Services ][(Conduct)]meaning Rules 1964.

BASIS OF [CHARGE:]

1. Report [sent ][in ][Dis.No ][5740, ][dated ][16'07 ]['2014' ][from]the Principal [District ][Judge, Rangareddy']the Principal [District ][Judge, Rangareddy']

2. Detailed [special ][report ][sent ][in ][Dis'No'5922' ][dated]22.07.2014 from [the ][Principal ][District ][Judge']RangareddY.22.07.2014 from [the ][Principal ][District ][Judge']RangareddY.

3. High Court's [circular ][instructions ][issued ][in]Roc.No.2399lOP.Cell.E/201 [1, ][dated 8-8-201 ][1']Roc.No.2399lOP.Cell.E/201 [1, ][dated 8-8-201 ][1']

HYDERABADDate: 16-03-2015REGISTRAR [(VIGILANCE)"]

The petitioner [submitted ][a ][detailed ][and ][an]

exhaustive [reply ][denying ][all ][the ][charges ][on ][01'04'2015]and the disciplinary [authority, ][not ][being satislied with]the reply submitted [by ][the ][petitioner' ][appointed ][an]

Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer conducted adetailed and an exhaustive enquiry and submitted areport on 04.01.2016 exonerating the petitioner of all thecharges. Meaning thereby, the Enquiry Officer gave aclean chit to the petitioner. The disciplinary authorityi.e., the High Court, disagreeing with the findings arrivedat by the Enquiry Officer, issued a show cause notice on12.05.2OL6 and the petitioner again submitted a detailedreply to the show cause notide issued by the High Courtand finally an order was pas:ied on 13.10.2016 inflictingthe punishment of withholding of two increments withcumulative effect.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued beforethis Court that the first three charges were in respect ofan allegation stating that the petitioner has utilised theservices of Home Guard as driver, who was provided bythe Police Department, to drive her personal car forofficial and unofficial purposes. He has argued beforethis Court that the driver was tlever examined at anypoint of time in the departmental enquiry and there wasa total denial on the part of the petitioner in respect ofthe aloresaid allegations. Therefore, the Enquiry Officerhas given a clean chit to the petitioner in respect of tde,y [three ][charges ][and ][by no ][stretch of ][imagination, ][based]

Arguments

the [sarne ][matedal, ][the ][High Court ][could ][have]upon disagreed [with ][the ][findings arrived ][at ][by ][the ][Enquiry]Officer.

The appreciation [of ][evidence ][adduced ][in ][a]

departmental [enquiry ][cannot be ][done ][by the High Court']if [the ][findings ][are ][peryerse' ][the ][salne ][can]However, be [interfered ][with' ][In ][the ][present case' ][the]certainly Enquiry Officer, [after ][examining ][all ][the ][witnesses' ][has]arrivedataconclusionthatthechargesinrespectofutilisation [of ][services ][of driver ][are ][not ][established ][at ][all']One P.W.2 - [Sri ][D.Nagarjun, ][was ][examined before ][the]Officer [and ][it ][was ][his ][statement ][on the basis ][of]Enquiry which, the High [Court ][has held ][the ][charges ][proved' ][The]statement of [P'W.2 ]- [Sri ][D'Nagarjun, ][reveals ][that ][while]he was working [as ][I ][Additional ][District ][Judge-cum-]Metropolitan [Sessions, ][Ranga Reddy ][District' ][it ][was]brought to his [notice ][that ][the ][charged ][officer has ][utilized]the services [of ][a ][Home ][Guard ][driver' ][There ][was ][no]complaint of [any ][kind ][by ][P'W'2 ][- ][Sri ][D'Nagarjun' to ][any]in [respect ][of ][the ][aforesaid ][allegation' ][There]authority was no complaint [by the ][Police ][in ][the ][matter' ][there ][was]no complaint [by the driver ][in ][the matter and ][the ][driver],wasalsonotexaminedandtherefore'theHighCourt could not have proved the charges merely on the basis ofhearsay evidence.

In the considered opinion of this Court the EnquiryOfficer was justified in giving a finding that the charges1n respect of utilising the services of driver are notsubstantiated by evidence on record. In respect of theother charge, which was relating to late arriva-l and eariydeparture, the Enquiry Officer has held that the chargedofficer did inform the authorities and therefore, again hehas given a clean chit to the charged officer. Even in thenote of dissent, the High Court has observed that thecharged officer did apply for grant of permission for latearriva-l and early departure ald the early departure wasto consult a doctor, as an appointment was given by thedoctor immediately after the Court hours.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the note ofdissent is again not based upon arry cogent materialwhich was made available to the disciplinary authority bythe Enquiry Officer and therefore, this Court is of theopinion that the disciplinary authority has certainly erredin law and on facts in arriving at a different conclusionon the same set of facts and circumstances and also on. the same set of evidence.

Resultantly, [as ][it ][is ][a case of ][no ][evidence' ][this ][Court]can certainly [interfere ][with ][the departmental ][enquiry ][and]the {indings [arrived ][at ][by the ][disciplinary ][authority']

The Apex [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Yoginath ][D' ][Bagde ][v']State [of ][Maharashtral ][has ][held' ][as ][under ][(paragraphs]44,47 [and ][51"):-]

Conclusion

"44' [We ][fail to ][appreciate ][the ][approach ][of ][the]Disciplinary [Committee ][which has ][gone ][by ][surmises]and [conjectures ][rather ][than ][by ][the ][evidence-on-]record. [The ][statements ][of ][Dr ][Naranje ][and ][that ][of Mr]Bapat, [Advocate ][have ][not ][been taken ][into]consideration [by ][the ][Disciplinary ][Committee ][and ][it]has relied [upon ][the ][statement ][of ][the ][complainant]alone [to ][come ][to ][the ][conclusion ][that ][Mr ][Bapat']Advocate [had ][assured ][acquittal ][provided ][the]complainant [withdrew his transfer petitions']

47. These [facts ][will ][indicate][ that ][the ][accused]

(Deepak [Trimbakrao Deshmukh) ][had ][taken ][the Court']where [the ][two ][sessions ][trials ][were pending ][against]him, [for a ride' ][He ][had ][adopted ][similar tactics ][in ][the]Court [of ][Sessions ][Judge' ][Wardha' and ][again ][in ][the]Court [of ][lst ][Additional ][Distrlct and ][Sessions Judge']Wardha, [where ][these ][two ][cases ][were ][transferred' ][and]yet again [in ][the ][Court ][of ][the ][appellant where ][these]trials [came ][to ][be ][ultimately ][transferred']""""io.,"

51. lt [was][ 1astly contended ][bY][ Mr ][Harish ][N]rt cannot [reaPPraise ][the ][evidence]Salve [that this ][Cou]been [scrutinised ][bY ][the ][enquiry]which [has ][alreadY]the DisciPlinary [Committee' ][It ][is]oflicer [as ][also ][bY]High [Court ][or ][this ][Court cannot' ][in]contended [that ][the]

exercise of its [jurisdiction ]under Artrcle 226 or Article32 of the Constitution, act as the appellate authorityin the domestic enquiry or trial and it is not open tothis Court to reappraise the evidence. The propositionas put forward by Mr Salve is in very broad terms andcannot be accepted. The law is well settled that if thefindings are perverse and are not supported byevidence on record or the Iindings recorded at thedomestic trial are such to which no reasonable [person]would have reached, it would be open to the HighCourt as also to this Court to interfere in the matter.\n Kuldeep Singhv. Commr. of Police [(1999) 2 SCC 10 :1999 SCC (L&S) 429 :JT (1998) 8 SC 6031 this Court,relying upon the earlier clecisions in Nand KishorePrasadv. State of Bihar 3 SCC 366 : 1978 SCC[(1978) (L&S) 458 : AIR 1978 SC 1277 : (1978) 3 SCR 7081, [State ][of Andhra ][Pradeshv. ][Rama ][Rao ][AIR [1963 ][SC]1723 : (1964) 3 SCR 251 , Central Bank of IndiaLtd. v. Prakash Chand Jain [AIR 1969 SC 983 : (1969)2 Ll) 3771 , Bharat Iron Worksv, Bhagubhai BalubhaiPatell(1976) l SCC s18: 1976 SCC (L&S) 92: AIR1976 SC 98 : (1976) 2 SCR 2801 as also RajinderKumar Kindra v. Delhi Admn 4 SCC 635 : 1985[(1984) SCC (L&S) 131 : AIR 1984 SC 180s:(1985) l SCR8661 laid down that although the court cannot sit inappeal over the findings recorded by the disciplinaryauthority or the enquiry officer in a departmentalenquiry, it does not mean that in no circumstance canthe court interfere. It was observed that the power ofjudicial review available to a High Court as also to thisCourt under the Constitution takes in its stride thedomestic enquiry as well and the courts can interferewith the conclusions reached therein if there was noevidence to support the findings or the findingsrecorded were such as could not have been reached byan ordinary prudent man or the findings were- _perverse."

In the [iight ][of ][the ][a-foresaid ][judgment' ][this ][Court ][rs]of the [oPinion ][that][ as ][the ][charges ][have][ not ][been ][Proved]based [upon ][the ][evidence ][adcluced ][during ][departmental]enquiry, [the ][findings ][arrived ][at ][by ][the ][disciplinary]authoritY [are ][Perverse ][findings']

Resultantly, [the ][order ][passed ][by the ][High ][Court]dated13.10'2016isherebyquashed.Thepetitionershall be [entitled for ][all ][the ][consequential benefits flowing]out [of ][this ][order']

Thewritpetitionisaccordinglyallowed.Themiscellaneous [applicatiorrs ][pending, ][if ][any, shatl ][stand]closed' [There shall ][be ][no order ][as ][to ][costs']

rh at [Rule ][N ][i ][s ]:l :"3""" l,f"lor"r:ff :'3:::[3li [1*3 ][?i3lll;'i']='"' ][,"iil" ][ntv ][o ][n ]["]

SD/[. ][P.PADM][ANABHA][ REDDY]RASSIST[ANT ][REG IST]SECTION [OFFICER]

//TRUE [COPY//]

To'

. .. ,- .'^,,.r .'r .lrrdicature .. ,- .'^,,.r .'r .lrrdicature ,- .'^,,.r .'r .lrrdicature .'^,,.r .'r .lrrdicature .'r .lrrdicature .lrrdicature [at Hyderabad for ][the ][State]

. .. ,- .'^,,.r .'r .lrrdicature .. ,- .'^,,.r .'r .lrrdicature ,- .'^,,.r .'r .lrrdicature .'^,,.r .'r .lrrdicature .'r .lrrdicature .lrrdicature ' #,,1i'};' [;'"'{ ][r ][e ][a ][ns ][a ][n ][a]lii llf ? The Secretary {,":,',1# [to']fi[}" [jj:}!:;[fi ]rB,H ["']' #,,1i'};' [;'"'{ ][r ][e ][a ][ns ][a ][n ][a]lii llf ? The Secretary {,":,',1# [to']fi[}" [jj:}!:;[fi ]rB,H ["']

1 7 {f*f Two CD [CoPtes'][$*5*na:,1;;r''* ]["'rr:H: ]a. On" [SPare ][CoPY]pM rf7 {f*f Two CD [CoPtes'][$*5*na:,1;;r''* ]["'rr:H: ]a. On" [SPare ][CoPY]pM rf HIGH COURT

DATED:3011212021

OROERWP.No.8588 [of ][2017]

Allowing [the ][WP]Without [costs.]

ti\[E ][S}A][ ir].:Y-)!10 5 iru [z.tzz].l.t,tr,l:j [l]