WP/24811/1999 of Smt.K.Swarna Kumari Vs Govt. of Andhra Pradesh on 29 December 2006

1. 2001 (3) ALD 625 = 2001 (5) ALT 228 (DB)2. 2001 (6) ALT 255 (F.B)3. AIR 1972 SC 21794. 1991 Supp (2) SCC 125. (2001) 6 SCC 4916. 1998 SCC (L&S) 13897. (1999) 7 SCC 7398. AIR 2000 SC 229. (1992) 4 SCC 5410. (1993) 2 SCC 5611. (1995) 6 SCC 749

C/15

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BILAL NAZKIANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. VENKATESWARAREDDY

WRIT PETITION No. 24811 of 1999

Date: 29-12-2006.

Between :

Smt.K.Swarna Kumari.

…..Petitioner

And

Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary,Law (Legislative Affairs and J.Courts.C) Department &Others.

…..Respondents.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BILAL NAZKIANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. VENKATESWARAREDDY

WRIT PETITION No. 24811 of 1999

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Bilal Nazki)

Before we deal with the case, it will be necessary tomake reference to certain developments, which havetaken place during the pendency of this case, relating to the questions involved in this case. This writ petition hasbeen filed in the year 1999. The petitioner wascompulsorily retired from service by G.O.Ms.No.87, dated28.05.1999. One of the admitted facts was that theenquiry was conducted by the respondents in accordancewith the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services(Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1963(hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1963 Rules’). These 1963Rules were not in force when the enquiry was initiated. On 05.12.1997, a Circular was issued by the High Court,adopting Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification,Control and Appeals) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred toas ‘the 1991 Rules’). Additional charges were framedagainst the petitioner by proceedings dated 06.01.1998.When the matter came up before a Division Benchcomprising of the then Chief Justice Mr.Devinder Guptaand Justice M.Narayana Reddy, it noted the submissionof the learned counsel for petitioner that prejudice hadcaused to the petitioner as she was deprived of her rightswhich she could have availed under the 1991 Rules,therefore, the whole enquiry was bad. The DivisionBench’s attention was drawn to another Division Bench judgment of the Court in V.Rajamallaiah v. High Court of A.P[[1]]and a Full Bench Judgment in V.Venkata Bharani .v. High Court of A.P[[2]] But the Bench felt that proviso (b) to Rule 45 (1) of the 1991 Rules appears to have notbeen taken note of by those judgments, therefore, the writpetition was directed to be listed before a Full Bench toconsider the question as to the legality and validity of thedisciplinary proceedings continued after the 1991 Ruleswere adopted by the High Court. The matter went to aFull Bench and the Full Bench did not agree with theviews of the earlier Full Bench in V.Venkata Bharani’scase (2[nd] supra) and the Judges of the Full Bench were ofthe opinion, “We are of the view that the prejudice doctrinecannot be extended to cases where the entireset of applicable rules have been ignored,judicial discipline necessitates the matter beingreferred to a Larger Bench. Let the matter beplaced before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice forconstitution of a Larger Bench to decide thequestion as to whether the prejudice doctrinecan be extended to disciplinary proceedingswhere the applicable rules, in its entirety, has been ignored.”

Then the matter went to the Larger Bench. The LargerBench wrote two opinions; one was written by Smt.JusticeT.Meena Kumari for herself and for Mr.Justice A.GopalReddy and Mr.Justice R.Subhash Reddy. Concurrentopinion was written by Mr.Justice G.Raghuram and theCourt held that Venkata Bharani’s case (2[nd] supra) wasdecided in conformity with the consistent view taken bythis Court as well as the Apex Court in the matter ofdisciplinary proceedings and further held that theprejudice doctrine can be extended to the disciplinaryproceedings even where the applicable rules, in itsentirety, have been ignored. It also laid down, “We answer the reference by declaring that thedoctrine of prejudice is generically and inprinciple applicable even in a context where adepartmental inquiry has been conductedwholly under the 1963 Rules though theinquiry was initiated after the coming into forceof the 1991 Rules. As to whether relief oughtto be granted or declined on a complaint ofbreach of any one or more of the provisions ofthe 1991 Rules, the issue must be considered in the factual matrix of each case and on application of the relevant principles gatheredfrom the several precedents including StateBank of Patiala v.S.K.Sharma ((1996) 3 SCC364).”

This is the background in which this case has come up before us again. Petitioner challenges the order ofGovernment passed in G.O.Ms.No.87, dated 28.05.1999issued under Clause (vii) of Rule 9 of the 1991 Rules. Bythis order, the petitioner was punished with compulsoryretirement from A.P. Judicial Services.

The petitioner was appointed as Judicial First Class Magistrate in the year 1985 and was promoted asSubordinate Judge and was functioning as such from13.11.1991. She assumed charge as Sub-Judge atRajam in Srikakulam District on 10.09.1996. She states inher petition that on her assumption of charge, there weremany irregularities being committed by the employees.She also found there was excess staff and they had beenworking at the same Station for a long time and hadcreated some vested interests. Some of them were localsand had contacts with clients. She addressed a D.O.

letter to the District Judge, Srikakulam to transfer twoClerks, as their services were no longer required at thatCourt. She had also sought for abolition of the post of‘Oriya Translator’, as there was no translation work in theCourt. Aggrieved by the letters of the petitioner, the StaffAssociation got provoked and passed a resolution inDecember 1996 against the petitioner. The District Judgecalled for her remarks on the resolution and she submitteddetailed remarks. The District Judge closed the matter. When another District Judge by name Sri K.Satyanandtook charge, he, alongwith the Additional District Judge,Srikakulam, went to Sub-Court, Rajam on a working dayand recorded the statements of certain individuals on21.06.1997. On instructions of the High Court, the entireprocess department of Munsif Magistrate Court, Rajamwas handed over to Sub-Court. She addressed severalcommunications to the District Judge about properutilization of the excess staff and transfer of some of thestaff members, but there was no response. The facts,according to the petitioner, were brought to the notice ofthe Portfolio Judge also at that time. Since the petitionerwas trying to streamline the staff, the staff developed grievance against her.

The inaction on her letters

grievance against her.

The inaction on her letters

emboldened the staff and they started disobeying herorders. She explained these problems through her letterdated 20.10.1997 to the District Judge, Srikakulam. Thestaff, who got aggrieved, started sending petitions andalso circulating press publications against her.

Thereafter, it appears that certain communicationswere sent to the High Court against the Officer and on thebasis of those allegations, the High Court, on 19.11.1997,ordered a departmental enquiry against the petitioner andappointed Sri P.Lakshma Reddy, District Judge,Visakhapatnam as Enquiry Officer. The officer wasplaced under suspension pending enquiry. Subsequently, another communication was issued by theHigh Court, referring to another complaint dated01.01.1997 and the District Judge, Visakhapatnam wasordered to frame additional charges. Ten charges wereframed by the Enquiry Officer-cum-District Judge,Visakhapatnam against the petitioner on 20.04.1998 andthe petitioner was asked to explain. She gave herexplanation to the charges denying all the allegations.

The Enquiry Officer, according to the petitioner,proceeded with the enquiry without considering herexplanation. The Presenting Officer examined 11witnesses and marked 44 documents. The petitioner onher side, exhibited 4 documents and did not adduce anyoral evidence, but filed additional written statement. TheEnquiry Officer prepared a questionnaire framing 30questions.

After hearing the arguments, the Enquiry Officer sent his report on 23.09.1998 to the High Court. The EnquiryOfficer was of the opinion that all charges except ChargeNo.5, had been proved and he recommended suitablepunishment. The Court, on considering the enquiryreport, furnished a copy of the enquiry report to thepetitioner to offer her explanation. She offered herexplanation on 18.11.1998. Thereafter, the High Court feltthat it was expedient to impose the punishment ofcompulsory retirement and requested the Government toissue necessary orders. Then the Government issued theimpugned G.O., compulsorily retiring the petitioner fromservice.

The charges framed against the petitioner were—“:Charge No.1

The Subordinate Judge, Rajam, being thehead of office and drawing officer of the paybills of establishments working in the office isexpected to sign, draw and pay the salaries ofthe Establishments, as per Article 72 of A.P.Financial Code and S.R.7 of T.R.16 of A.P.Treasury Code Volume-I. The bill of processestablishment for the month of September,1997 of Sub Court, Rajam was prepared on19.9.97 as usual along with otherestablishment pay bills and placed before theSub Judge, Rajam for signatures. She hassigned the other establishment bills and failedto sign the pay bill relating to ProcessEstablishment. The salaries of processestablishment are not received on 01.10.1997,as such the process establishment of SubCourt, Rajam have issued telegram to theHon’ble High Court of A.P., and District Court,Srikakulam complaining that their salary billsfor the month of September, 1997 were notsigned by the Sub Judge, Rajam and thattherefore, they are starving. They have furthersubmitted separate representation and statedthat the Sub Judge, Rajam had intentionallynot signed the pay bills keeping in her mindthat the Process Establishment staff members had earlier submitted a detailed representationagainst her for the harassment and ill-treatment towards the staff members.:Charge No.2

On receipt of telegram by the District Judge,Srikakulam, he contacted the Sub Judge,Rajam by phone and ascertained the reasonsfor not signing the pay bill of ProcessEstablishment for the month of September,1997. The Sub Judge, Rajam replied to theDistrict Judge, Srikakulam that she had notsigned the Process Establishment bill with aview to make the members of theestablishment to understand the existence ofthe Sub Judge, Rajam and without thesignatures of the Sub Judge, Rajam, the salarybills cannot be drawn. She further stated in herreply to the District Judge that the bills can beencashed by the staff members even withoutthe signatures of the Drawing Officer, if theyare able to get the salaries without hersignatures by presenting a bill in the SubTreasury. Thereupon, the District Judgeinstructed the Sub Judge on phone that it wasnot proper on her part in not signing the paybills of Process Establishment, that since2.10.1997 was a public holiday, he asked heratleast to sign the bill on 3.10.1997 by 10.30A.M. immediately after she reaches the Courtand see that the bill of the Process Establishment is enchased. This is allhappened on 1.10.1997. On the next day i.e.on 2.10.1997 when the District Judge wastalking to the Addl. District Judge, Prl. SubJudge and Addl. Sub Judge, Srikakulam at hisresidence, the Sub Judge Rajam came atabout 1.00 p.m. and after her arrival the Addl.District Judge and Prl. Sub Judge, Srikakulamleft and the Addl. Sub Judge, Srikakulam wasalone present. The Sub Judge, Rajamcomplained about the acts of the StaffMembers and disobeying her orders. TheDistrict Judge, Srikakulam after hearing herfurther instructed and requested to sign thepay bill of Process Establishment first,immediately on the next day i.e. 3.10.97 by10.30 A.M., immediately after she attends theoffice and see that the bill is encashed, forwhich the Sub Judge, Rajam agreed in thepresence of the District Judge, Srikakulam andthe Addl. Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam. On3.10.97 when the District Judge enquiredabout the encashment of the bill, it wasinformed that the Pay Bill was not signed bythe Sub Judge, Rajam till 3.00 P.M. but shesigned only after 3.00 P.M. after the closure ofbank transactions. Thus the Sub Judge,Rajam has grossly disobeyed the orders of theDistrict Judge, Srikakulam, causedinconvenience and hardship to the staff members in drawing their salaries in time.

One Pogiri Pentayya, issued telegramdt.27.10.97 to the District Judge, Srikakulamand also issued telegram on the same day tothe Hon’ble Chief Justice, High Court of A.P.,Hyderabad complaining that the judgment inSessions Case No.138/96 on the file of theAsst. Sessions Judge, Rajam was pronouncedon 24.10.97 convicting and sentencing theaccused for rigorous imprisonment for threeyears each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-each in default to suffer simple imprisonmentfor six months, that the said judgment was nottyped till 27.10.97 and the free copies ofjudgments were not supplied to them. Onreceipt of the telegram, on 27.10.97, theDistrict Judge, Srikakulam informed theRegistrar (Vigilance), High Court of A.P. onphone and proceeded to Rajam and reachedthere by 5.00 P.M. on 27.10.97. He took alongwith him Sri M.Govindarao, Head Clerk of hisCourt for his assistance. Sri K.V.Giridharan,Addl. District Judge, Srikakulam had alsoaccompanied him. By the time they reachedand visited the Court of Asst.Sessions Judge,Rajam, the judgment in S.C.No.138/96 wasbeing typed by Sri N.Nagaraju, Steno-typistwith reference to the dictation said to havebeen taken by him in the shorthand notebook

maintained by him from 23.10.97. Thejudgment was typed in 19 pages completelyand upto half portion in the 20[th] page. Immediately, he got seized the judgment andshorthand note books containing the dictationfrom the possession of the Steno-typist. Hemade an endorsement in the margin portion ofthe said judgment to that effect. The Steno-typist in his statement dt.27.10.97 stated thatthe judgment in S.C.No.138/96 was dictated bythe Asst.Sessions Judge, Rajam on 18.10.97in part and thereafter it was completed by24.10.97. By the time the judgment in the saidcase was pronounced on 24.10.97, thejudgment was not typed. The Asst.SessionsJudge, Rajam pronounced the judgment on24.10.97 by getting the result portion typed onthe docket sheet. She had not signed in theshorthand notebook on 24.10.1997, orsubsequently. The District Judge, Srikakulamhas further stated that the original incompletejudgment and the shorthand note book andother records seized by him were brought toDistrict Court, Srikakulam. Sri P.Prasadarao,Head Clerk, Sub Court, Rajam who wasdealing with the branch of Sessions Caseshad also given a statement of facts on theabove aspects and other aspects touching theharassment meted out to the staff members bythe Subordinate Judge, Rajam. After seizure of the records and the judgment SriN.Nagaraju, Steno-typist represented to theDistrict Judge that the dictation of Judgment inO.S.7/96 was also taken down in the sameshorthand note book maintained from 23.10.97and the said suit was posted for judgment to28.10.97 and as the same was not yet typed,he requested to return that book for purpose oftyping the judgment in suit which is to bepronounced on 28.10.97. As such, theshorthand notebook commencing from23.10.97 was returned to the Steno-typist soas to enable him to transcribe the judgment inO.S.7/96 under proper acknowledgment andwith a direction to handover the shorthandnotebook to the District Court intact without anymodifications on 28.10.97. Accordingly, theSteno-typist produced the shorthand notebookon 28.10.97 before the District Judge,Srikakulam. Thereupon, the District Judgeinstructed the steno-typist to complete theremaining portion of the judgment in SessionsCase No.138/96 from page No.20 upto which itwas typed previously, at the District Court,Srikakulam itself and accordingly he hascompleted the typing of the judgment anddelivered to the District Judge, Srikakulam. The District Judge further stated that heperused the record in Sessions CaseNo.138/96 produced by Sri P.Prasada Rao, Head Clerk and he observed that the accused1 to 49 were convicted and sentenced to sufferrigorous imprisonment for 3 years each and topay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default tosuffer simple imprisonment for six months andthe said sentence was suspended till 4.11.97as per order dt.25.10.97 in Crl.M.P.Nos.230/97and 231/97 on the file of Asst. SessionsJudge, Rajam, that he felt that the originaljudgment in S.C.No.138/96 dt.24.10.97 has tobe retransmitted to the Asst. Sessions Judge,Rajam for preparing copies of judgment andsupplying them to the accused as otherwisethe accused would be put to hardship. He hastherefore, transmitted the complete judgment(not signed by the Asst. Sessions Judge,Rajam) in his proceedings Dis.No.5911dt.28.10.97 to the Asst. Sessions Judge,Rajam, so as to enable her to supply copy ofjudgments to the accused. Thus, the accusedwere deprived of getting free copies ofjudgments on the date of pronouncement ofjudgment, on 24.10.97 as per the provisions ofCriminal Procedure Code and they were put tohardship.

The Government of A.P., in their memoNo.26444-A/500/A.2/FR.I/97 dt.10.7.1997have extended facility to the State Governmentemployees to surrender earned leave before

31.8.1997 those who have leave title of 240days. Sri S.Suryam, Amin, one of the eligiblecandidates has applied by submitting anapplication on 13.8.1997 with a request tosanction permission to surrender earned leavefor 15 days from 16.8.97 to 31.8.97 in terms ofthe said Govt. Memo. A rough calculationsheet of leave account of the said Amin wasprepared by the Head Clerk and in-chargeSheristadar as per the instructions of the SubJudge, Rajam and found entitled to get thebenefit. A letter dt.26.8.97 addressed to theDistrict Judge, Srikakulam forwarding the leaveapplication of Sri B.Suryam, Amin wasprepared and placed before the Sub Judge,Rajam for signature. The Sub Judge, Rajamhad deliberately not signed the letter keepingin view that the said Amin is one of thepetitioners in a petition sent against the SubJudge, Rajam. As the letter was not signedand the leave application was not forwarded,the Amin lost the benefit of surrender of earnedleave though he is entitled to.:Charge No.5

Ten staff members of Sub Court, Rajam haveapplied to the District Judge, Srikakulamrequesting to accord permission to surrenderearned leave for 15 days from 17.10.97 to31.10.97 for encashment. The District Judge,Srikakulam in his proceedings Dis.No.5751

dt.21.10.97 was pleased to accord permissionto them to surrender earned leave as per theirrequest. A bill for Rs.18,920/- was prepared inpursuance of the proceedings of the DistrictJudge and the said bill was signed by the SubJudge, Rajam on 27.10.97. A.P.T.C. FormNo.101 in support of the said bill was alsosigned by the Sub Judge, Rajam. Havingsigned the bill and A.P.T.C. Form No.101, theSub Judge, Rajam had deliberately made anendorsement on the bill as to how themembers are entitled to house rent allowanceand stopped the presentation of the bill. Subsequently, she made an endorsement onthe said bill on 31.10.97 to the effect that thebill was cancelled. The Staff Members whoare affected with the irrational act of the SubJudge, Rajam complained to the DistrictJudge, Rajam on 27.10.97 when he visitedRajam. The act of the Sub Judge, Rajam innot presenting the bill even though the DistrictJudge, Srikakulam accorded sanction with aview to cause harassment and loss to the staffmembers, for extraneous reasons.:Charge No.6

The annual increment of Sri N.ChandraSekhara Rao, Process Server, Sub Court,Rajam was sanctioned on 12.8.97. An arrearincrement bill was prepared for Rs.95/- alongwith necessary enclosures such as increment certificate and A.P.T.C. Form No.101. TheSub Judge, Rajam has not signed the billthough she sanctioned the increment due tothe individual for the reason that the saidprocess server is one of the petitioners in thepetition sent against the Sub Judge, Rajam. The act of the Sub Judge, Rajam betrays thevindictive attitude against the said staffmember.

The annual increments of the following staffmembers, Sub Court, Rajam are due on therespective dates of accrual;

1. Sri B.T.Rangarao, Oriya

Translator.

2. Sri M.Gopala Rao, Process

Server.

3. Sri A.Trinadha Rao, Process

Server.

4. Sri N.R.Gopalakrishna, Attender.

5. Sri M.Polayya, Process Server.

6. Sri D.Srinivasu, Examiner.

7. Sri V.V.Adinarayana, Amin.

8. Sri P.Prasadarao, Head Clerk.

It is clearly envisaged in Rule 24 ofFundamental Rules, that an increment to theGovt. employees shall be sanctioned as amatter of course unless such increments arewithheld or postponed by the competent disciplinary authority. Though there are nosuch orders, the Sub Judge, Rajam haddeliberately not sanctioned the increments tothe above staff members though necessaryproposals were placed by the Chief MinisterialOfficer, with a view to cause hardship to theStaff members for the extraneous reasons andfor the reason that they have submittedpetitions against her.

Sri K.T.N.Prabhu, Typist, Sub Court, Rajamproceeded to Srikakulam on official duty on26.5.97, 30.5.97 and on 3.6.97 as per theinstructions of the Chief Ministerial Officer toobtain signatures from the in-charge officer onurgent correspondence and other matters. Two T.A. Bills for the months of May and June,1997 of the individual were prepared andplaced before the Sub Judge, Rajam alongwith a covering letter addressed to the DistrictJudge, Srikakulam for signatures. The SubJude, Rajam has neither signed the T.A. Billsnor forwarded them to the District Judge,Srikakulam, thereby the individual lost hisclaim of T.A. though he incurred expenditurefor the official journeys he performed inconnection with the official duties. The SubJudge, Rajam thereby committed misconductand caused loss to the individual for the reason that the T.A. claimant had not acted asper the wishes of Sub Judge, Rajam.

The Hon’ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabadissued circulars from time to time for deposit ofP.D. Account amounts in various Nationalizedbanks in the shape of F.D.Rs. Accordingly, thedeposits made in various L.A.OPs., and otherproceedings were invested in various banks inRajam, by the Sub Judges, who acted prior toSmt.K.Swarna Kumari. Smt.K.Swarna Kumari,Sub Judge, Rajam during her period hadwithdrawn the deposits for no valid reasons,kept the amounts in P.D.Account for some timeand again reinvested in some other banksdifferent of their originally invested banks. Oneof the Bank employees sent up unsignedcomplaint to the Hon’ble High Court stating thatthe Sub Judge, Rajam requested to arrangevehicle for her tour and they could not arrangethe vehicle. The Sub Judge, Rajam withdrawnthe deposits from their Bank even at immaturitystage and reinvested in some other banks. The act of the Sub Judge, exfacie supports theallegations set out in the complaint petitionsent by some of the bank officials to theHon’ble High Court. The former District Judge,Sri K.C.Bhanu on receipt of the complaintpetition from the Hon’ble High Court, caused investigation about the deposits andreinvestments and he submitted a detailedreport to the Hon’ble High Court from which it isprima facie found that the Sub Judge, Rajamacted derogatory to the prestige of the officewhich amounts to misconduct.

Sri P.Prasadarao, Head Clerk and in chargeSheristadar, Sub Court, Rajam submitted astatement of facts on 27.10.97 to the DistrictJudge, Srikakulam narrating the harassmentmade by the Sub Judge, Rajam to the staffmembers and the fact of not typing of judgmentin S.C.No.138/96 on the file of Asst. SessionsJudge, Rajam. He had also produced therecord in S.C.No.138/96 before the DistrictJudge, Srikakulam on 28.10.97 for perusal. The Sub Judge, Rajam could not bear with theacts of Sri P.Prasadarao and went uponharassing the individual and in that process,the Sub Judge, Rajam issued memo ona flimsy ground stating that an unregisteredappeal bearing O.R.No. 1729/96 was notplaced before the Sub Judge, Rajam fororders, till 11.11.97. The un-registered appealwas returned by the Sub Judge, Rajam on4.8.97 for payment of deficit court fee before18.8.97. The Sub Judge, Rajam in the officialmemo issued to the Head Clerk, P.Prasadarao alleged that the said appeal was not placed till11.11.1997 though the deficit court fee waspaid on 18.8.97. The Sub Judge has furtherstated that she called for the explanationbasing on an office note dt.11.11.97 put by theSteno-typist Sri N.Nagaraju. In fact, the officenote does not contain the particulars by whomit was prepared and placed. It is also primafacie found that Sri P.Prasadarao was not in-charge during the period as Sheristadar. TheSub Judge, Rajam with a view to causeharassment and disparagement to theindividual issued memo without any validmaterial and thereby displayed misconduct indischarging her official duties.”

The explanation submitted by the petitioner for the abovecharges was—

“:Charge No.1

I took charge of Process Establishment in July1997. I realized that there are two excessprocess servers and an Amin. I informed thefact to the District Court and requested them totransfer without any substitute arrangements. Some process servers are very long standing,right from 1980 and they being in predominantposition by virtue of their station seniority. OneA.Trimurthulu was involved in a criminal caseand a civil suit before the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Rajam and I brought this fact to thenotice of the District Judge and asked for histransfer. His Lordship Justice Bhikshapathivisited Sub-Court, Rajam and instructed me inthe presence of the then District Judge andJudicial I Class Magistrate to get the premisescleaned by the Process Establishment. Iposted two process servers and they refusedto attend. I realized that only six processservers are attending to work and two were notentrusted with any legitimate duty. I brought allthese facts to the notice of the District Judge. In spite of all these things the processestablishment in my absence, when I was onleave made a representation to the then Addl.District Judge. I came to know this factsubsequently. I asked them to prepare bills,because they committed insubordinationwithout any intimation to the officer concerned. I informed them when they have no respect tothe drawing officer they can as well draw theirsalaries with their signatures if rules permit. They did not place the bills even after 19[th] nor Irefused. I sent word to Prakash Rao, Amin on1.10.1997, but he did not attend. I neverrefused to sign the bills nor I have an intentionto do so. The staff at sub-court, Rajam alsomade such representation in December 1996and made a cheap paper publicationdamaging my reputation on 1.1.1997. The

same was adopted by the processestablishment again in September 1997. TheDistrict Court did not take proper steps tocontrol insubordination. I have no otheralternative except to warn them being the headof the institution. I signed the bills when thestaff of Sub-court, Rajam made a signedrepresentation to the learned District Judgeagainst me in January 1997. So the questionof vendictiveness does not arise. The processestablishment did not place the bills till 30[th]September 1997 with an ulterior motive ofgiving telegrams. I never ignored my officialduties and I signed the other bills. The issuingof telegram on 1.10.1997 itself discloses thatthey are malafide, otherwise they ought tohave informed the same before 30.9.1997without putting their problem before the learnedDistrict Judge from 19.9.1997 to 30.9.97 eitherorally or in writing giving opportunity to thelearned District Judge to solve their problem. Directly sending telegram to Registrar(Vigilance) speaks volumes regarding theirconduct and attitude. I never violated the F.R. I did not sign because they did not place thesame before my table for my signatures. Theywere so guilt-ridden. The salaries for themonth of January 1997 were received on4.2.1997 and March 1997 salaries were received on 4.4.1997. In fact sub-courtAttenders received salaries of September1997 on 15.10.1997. So the question ofstarving does not arise and it was an inventedfact. There is nothing like official secrecy landeverything is used to be revealed to them soonafter a letter is dispatched from my desk. Therefore they bore tremendous grouseagainst me though they came into my controlonly two months ago.

I paid a visit to the learned District Judge on2.10.97 as I previously could not see him afterhe took charge as District Judge, Srikakulam. Iwas not called by the learned District Judge. During the course of conversation, I requestedthe learned District Judge to transfer certainprocess servers as they are excess and longstanding and causing much hindrance topeaceful administration of the court. Thelearned District Judge then informed me thatthe process establishment directly sent atelegram to the vigilance cell and asked me tosign the bills and he will look into the matter ofthe transfers later. But he never informed meto sign the bills at 10-30 A.M. That is thereason why the same was not mentioned in hisreport and it was only an after thought. I didnot speak in a defiant tone on 1-10-1997 to the learned District Judge over phone. I usuallyattend judicial work by 10.30 A.M andafterwards administrative work. I did the sameeven on 3.10.1997. The processestablishment was quite reluctant to bring thebills even on 3.10.1997. I on my own accordsent word for the head clerk to place the billsimmediately. I got down from the bench by12/12.30 noon and signed the bills at once. On 3.10.1997 around 1/1.30 P.M. I received aphone call from the Sheristadar, District Courtand I informed that I already signed on thebills. Again a telephone was made to theJudicial I Class Magistrate around 3 P.M. Heinformed that I signed the bills at 3 P.M. Ireversed the judgements of the presentJudicial I Class Magistrate and he was verymuch aggrieved and gave false informationwhich prejudiced the mind of the learnedDistrict Judge. The process establishmentwas in his control till recently for over a periodof 2 years during his tenure of office and hehanded over the charge of the same quitereluctantly and unwillingly. It is a puzzle howhe came to know the time of signing the bills inmy chamber speaks volumes especially whenhe was not in talking terms with me.

The Sessions Case 138 of 96 is an identified

:Charge No.3

The Sessions Case 138 of 96 is an identified case where 49 people including aged peopleand women were involved. The crime relatesto 1994 with regard to theft of ballot boxes andobstruction of government officials in duedischarge of their duties. The accused at thefirst instance moved for transfer of this matterfrom sub-court during my tenure. They did notsucceed in their attempt and moved fortransfer of this case from my file and they failedin High Court also. Later some of the accusedabsconded in order to drag on the matter andNBWs were issued to nearly 10 to 15accused. Ultimately the trial was completedand arguments heard. After hearing thearguments, I gave dictation to the Steno as ismy normal practice. I only gave conclusion on24.10.97 as the accused were highly influentialand high-handed people belonging to localruling political party. I completed my dictationaround 3/3.30 P.M. and gave time to the stenofor completion of typing till 4.30 P.M. As thecrime relates to a political party there was ahuge crowd on the premises of the court and itbecame impossible to the police to control thecrowd. When I sent word at 4.30 P.M. tosteno, he said that the judgment was ready. So I went to the Bench as it will take sufficienttime to the police to take the accused intocustody. Only while pronouncing judgment thesteno informed that the last page was not typed. As there is no other alternative andthere is every chance of judgments beingrevealed and accused absconding and therewould be no chance for me to pronounce thejudgment on a subsequent date and it wouldlead to so many other complications. Thepractical difficulties of a Judge must beunderstood in judicious spirit. The stenocategorically admitted before the learnedDistrict Judge on 27.10.97 at the time ofseizure that dictation was completed and hecould not type due to his personal problems. There was gross negligence even according tohis admission and there is dereliction of dutyfor which no action followed till today from theDistrict Court. The staff collected fine to a tuneof Rs.50,000/- and placed the bonds around10.30 P.M. My mind was fully engaged from24[th] to 28[th] October 1997. I again sent word tothe steno on 25.10.97 and I came to know thathe was absconding and left for Vizag, hisnative place on 25.10.97 and 26.10.97 (beingSunday). A memo was prepared and thesame was seized by the learned DistrictJudge. The learned District Judge spent till 9P.M. on 27.10.97 with the processestablishment and seized so many records inmy absence as per the information given bythe head clerk. The learned District Judge didnot spare even one minute to me in order to ascertain the facts. The steno brought typedpapers of judgment around 12.30 noon on 27[th]and I asked him to place it in proper form. When I asked him about the reason for non-typing of judgement he threw the blame on thesessions clerk that he took the record forpreparing the bonds. The telegram by PogiriPentaiah was a fictitious one issued by staff ofsub-court and no petition followed it. So therewas no complaint at all.

Regarding B.Suryam, Amin, I forwarded hisapplication to the District Court though thiscourt did not receive the circular from theDistrict Court by that time. But the DistrictCourt returned the same with an objection. Then I asked the head clerk who is in-chargeSheristadar to verify the Earned Leaveaccount and submit the same but it was notplaced in time and it has become time-barredlater after complying the objection. Later heencashed the Earned Leave along with otherstaff members. So there is neither vengeancenor ill-treatment.

I signed the Earned Leave encashment bill of

the staff members and the same was alsoseized on 27.10.97. But even before mysigning on the bill, the staff hurled an insult thatif I fail to sign that they will intimate the same tothe District Court. Thus a threat was hurled onmy face as and when I was preparing to signon the bill. This threatening attitude of thesubordinate naturally pricked my conscience. Apart from this, I am very much doubtfulregarding the entries of Earned Leave Record. I myself detected that the earned leave availedby Mr.N.R.G.Gopalakrishna, Attender of thiscourt was not debited. So there was again acredit of 15 days. Similarly the District Courtsent a memo that the E.L. encashed by oneMr.Govindarao of this court was not shown inthe service record of the individual. Thus thereare false entries and false credits of E.L.account in the S.Rs. of different individuals. There was no proper maintenance of E.L.account in the S.Rs. by the Chief MinisterialOfficer. So I asked my Chief Ministerial Officerto verify and submit a report before preparing abill. He failed to do so and rather refused to doso in view of the latches underlying in the S.R.of each individual. After signing the bill, Ientertained a doubt how they are entitled toH.R.A. in encashment as the same objectionwas taken when I applied for the same. TheChief Ministerial Officer failed to clarify my doubt and so I put the same on the bill andlater it was clarified and they encashed thesame. The rule position was same originallyland later it was amended as per the noteprepared by the head clerk. So anythingattributed to me in this regard is doubting mysincerity in discharging my duties.

I sanctioned the increment ofMr.N.Chandrasekhara Rao, Process Server(as the increments of others are also due, Iasked the Chief Ministerial Officer to prepareone bill for the entire process establishment). The bill was not placed before me. To facilitateadministration and to minimize work, I haveinstructed the Chief Ministerial Officer to adopta uniform procedure of doing a single bill forthe entire process establishment.

Immediately after taking charge, I noticed thatthe Oriya Translator Post at Rajam is not at allnecessary and it was a superfluous additionespecially with U.D. Cadre. This is the rootcause for the entire trouble both at my sub-court level and at District Court and the DistrictJudicial Employees Union level. I addressed anumber of D.O. letters that there is nonecessity for continuation of this purely

temporary post, as Rajam is on the Southerntip of the Srikakulam District. This topic wasraised by Sri K.C.Bhanu the District Judge inthe conference before the Portfolio Judge hisLordship Justice Rajagopalareddy. HisLordship Justice Rajagopala Reddy alsoadvised and appreciated only the Sub Judge,Rajam informed that there is less work andmore staff and excess staff can be taken awayby the District Court for satisfactory utility oftheir services. For all my troubles with the stafftheir grievance was that I addressed suchletters and thereby caused a big hue and cry,though nothing took place out of my D.O.letters. The Oriya Translator never translateda single deposition or document during histenure of 4 years as Oriya Translator with U.D.capacity. He was deputed as O.P. Clerk forsome time and record room i/c for some time. His services were never taken by the court fortranslation purpose. So the very purpose ofhis appointment in this court is defeated. When I represented this fact in the conference,the Hon’ble High Court Justice directed theDistrict Judge to remove this temporary post. In spite of his Lordship’s instruction, the DistrictCourt continued him in my court and therebycaused untold havoc and misery to me. Heused to demonstrate anonymous andpseudonymous petitions to the High Court as well as District Court and provoked the otherstaff members to revolt. When I addressed aD.O. letter, a Departmental Enquiry was alsolaunched against the Oriya Translator,Mr.B.T.Rangarao and the Steno D.SrinivasaRao who claimed conveyance allowancewithout attending my residence for dictationeither before court hours or after court hours. Iam always in the habit of giving dictation in thechamber itself soon after the completion of myjudicial and other administrative work and onSaturdays. The steps taken by me to developsincerity among the staff members has led tomy suspension. When two Attendersabstained from duty, after calling for theirexplanation their salary was remitted to thetreasury for the said period. Similarly theprocess servers in their guard duty frequentlyused to abstain guard duty. So I took allmeasures so as to make them present. Whenthe guard of the Munsif Court similarlyabstained from duty the District Munsiff who isin-charge of the Nazarat who also came toknow this fact personally failed to take steps tocontrol indiscipline. This made all thedifference between our two regimes in theadministration of process establishment. Except Mr.D.Srinivas, Examiner, I am notsatisfied with the services of other processestablishment and they caused much displeasure in discharging their duties. Theobjection taken by me in the increment registerto place a note regarding their work aspectwas not complied by the Chief MinisterialOfficer. The District Court also expressed itsdissatisfaction regarding their performance. The increment will usually be granted for theimproved services but not for dissatisfactoryservice or at times ‘nil service’. I was verymuch displeased when arrest warrants werereturned collusively and a number of timesAdvocates made representations regardingthe dissatisfaction of their performance (theircollusiveness with JDRs). I addressed anumber of letters regarding transfer ofMr.B.T.Rangarao, M.Gopala Rao, A.Trinadharao, N.R.G.Gopala Krishna, M.Polaiah andMr.B.Suryam, Amin as they are the menbehind these resolutions.

B.T.Rangarao and D.Srinivasa rao weretransferred in July 97 as the then District Judgewas annoyed when they questioned the act ofthe District Judge himself launching an enquiryagainst them. Thus I suffered a lot of tortureand agony due to the acts of my; staffdemonstrating petitions to High Court as wellas District Court and by passing resolutionsand by making cheap paper publicationsdamaging my reputation which are quiteagainst the conduct rules of any government servant. Knowing pretty well that I am on theverge of promotion they have aggravated thesituation and successfully exploited thesituation. They have also succeeded with mysuspension.

As per the F.R. 24 there is no necessityfor the postponement of increment orwithholding of increment by the competentauthority. As the drawing officer is supposedto check the performance of the individual andhis performance must be satisfactory to thedrawing officer. The sanction of increment isonly for improved service and satisfactoryservice but not for disobedience and nil serviceto the drawing officer. I sanctioned theincrements of all except Mr.B.T.Rangarao as Iexpected his temporary post would becancelled as per the directions of his LordshipJustice Rajagopala Reddy.

Mr.K.T.N.Prabhu is Typist of Sub-court. TheChief Ministerial Officer, Narayanamurthy didnot inform me that he deputed Mr.Prabhu toattend Sub-court, Srikakulam and to leaveheadquarters. So I took the same objectionand the same was not complied by the headclerk. The District Court also took similarobjection when I applied for T.A. to giveevidence in the Departmental Enquiry of B.T.Rangarao and D.Srinivasarao. The billwas prepared in February 1998. When Ihanded over the certificate on 16[th] November,97 asking them to prepare a bill until I broughtthe same into the notice of the in-charge sub-judge. So I lost my T.A. bill because of thelatches of the staff. His confidential reports bymy predecessor disclose the attitude of theindividual and he was transferred to this courton the D.O. letter of the Presiding Officer. Such are the antecedents of Mr.K.T.N.Prabhu.

The F.D.Rs. are in the custody of Sheristadareven before I took charge as Sub Judge,Rajam. The Sheristadar used to place noteand list of matured F.D.Rs. and afterencashment, he used to place note again forfresh deposit. The charge is vague and therewas no relevant material in the petition. TheChief Ministerial Officer and Accounts Clerkare responsible for the delay of deposits andthey must be held responsible for any loss ofinterest. In spite of my repeated instructionsthey did not place the note for fresh deposits. Ialready submitted remarks to the then DistrictJudge. I am of the clear opinion that thispetition is demonstrated by staff on 1.1.97along with a cheap paper publication. Otherwise there is no scope for the bank

officials and outsiders to know the internaladministration and verification of deposits. Prior to my arrival to Rajam there weredeposits at Boddam (Syndicate Bank) andPonduru (State Bank of India). I did not go forany cancellation of any deposit at a prematurestage. I did not vitiate circulars of theHonourable High Court and I am notresponsible for the delay. I never asked forany car as alleged.

Mr.P.Prasada Rao, Head Clerk wastransferred to my court on some allegationsthat he demonstrated petition against SriK.C.Bhanu, District Judge to the High Court. Ireceived a letter from the District Court that hecommitted fraud in T.A. Bill (by producing falseticket numbers) even before his arrival.

I issued 3 memos for not numbering 30plaints during his tenure and for tampering ofrecord by introducing court fee in a rejectedappeal for non-payment of court fees. Thethird memo was issued only at his instancewhen the Steno offered explanation for nottyping the judgment as the Head Clerk cumSessions Clerk i.e. Sri P.Prasada Rao failed tohand over the record on the pretext ofpreparing bonds. Immediately after thememos without offering explanation, he applied for Medical Leave with a falsecertificate and immediately cancelled the sameafter my suspension and reported to duty.

If checking of a senior Clerk cum ChiefMinisterial Officer on the grave dereliction ofduties and tampering of record amounts toharassment, I have no explanation for thischarge. The same learned District Judge whofelt that issuing a memo is harassment alsoissued a memo to this individual on submittingfalse information regarding Earned Leave Billand explanation was called for by the DistrictJudge from the in-charge officer and the matterwas also informed to the High Court by theDistrict Judge. The in-charge officer was alsoissued a memo by the District Judge on thisaspect.

The Document ‘4’ in Charge No.10, theexplanation dated 21.3.98 by P.Prasada Raospeaks volumes regarding the integrity of thecourt and staff and judiciary in toto. In the 2[nd]week of November memos were served andtime was extended upto 21[st]or 22[nd]November. The explanation dated 21.3.98 is amanipulation subsequent to my suspension. There was no explanation by Sri Prasada Raowithin the time stipulated by the court. Therewas no extension of time for offering explanation after a lapse of 4 to 5 months from November 97 till March 98 speaks volumes insending a vindictive report and partial reportagainst me. The learned District Judgeinstead of launching action against SriPrasada Rao for his gross dereliction of duty,sent a report against me even after mysuspension discloses any amount of partialitytowards me and impartiality towards the staffand especially this Prasada Rao. The samegentleman and Mr.Narayanamurthy madestatement before Sri Satyanand, District Judgethat they have no grievance.

In conclusion I can only state that I havebeen working in absolute honesty and sincerityand my acts in good faith to improve theefficiency of staff were misconstrued by thehierarchy as well as my subordinates.”

The learned counsel for petitioner challenges the

Conclusion

impugned Government Order on three grounds; firstly, it iscontended that the services of legal practitioner were notallowed and that caused prejudice to the petitioner. Inpara 7 (c)(v) of the writ petition, it is contended that thepetitioner moved an application for permission to engagea legal practitioner. She also sent a letter on 09.07.1998

and a telegram on 13.07.1998. The letter and telegramwere rejected on 31.07.1998 after the closure of enquiry. She further submitted that this not only showed the bias ofthe Enquiry Officer, but also deprived the petitioner ofhaving the assistance of a legal practitioner. ThePresenting Officer was a senior District Judge, who wassuperior to the petitioner and obviously well versed andbetter than the petitioner in law. She was entitled to havethe assistance of a legal practitioner under sub-rule 8 ofRule 20 of the 1991 Rules.

In the counter affidavit the Registrar of the HighCourt stated that the petitioner herself was a JudicialOfficer, having considerable experience and as suchrejecting her request for engaging a counsel for defendingher, was justified.

Rule 19 (2)(b) of the 1963 Rules lay down, “Except under very special circumstances tobe recorded in writing by the inquiry officer orany officer to whom an appeal may bepreferred, no pleader or agent shall be allowedto appear either on behalf of the Government or on behalf of the person charged before theinquiry officer.

Provided that when a request is made by theperson charged for engaging a counsel on theground that he is not acquainted with thelanguage in which the inquiry is conducted, theinquiry officer or the officer to whom the appealhas been preferred shall allow the personcharged to be represented by a counsel.”

Sub-rule (8)(a) of Rule 20 of the 1991 Rules lay down—

“The Government Servant may take theassistance of any other Government Servantto present the case on his behalf, but may notengage a legal practitioner for the purposeunless the Presenting Officer appointed by thedisciplinary authority is a legal practitioner, or,the disciplinary authority, having regard to thecircumstances of the case so permits.”

There is no material difference between the provisions of the 1963 Rules and the 1991 Rulesbecause, in both cases, the disciplinary authority canpermit assistance of a legal practitioner except that in1991 Rules, a legal practitioner can be allowed to represent the delinquent officer if the Presenting Officer isa legal practitioner. The learned counsel for petitionersubmits that a senior District Judge should be taken to bea legal practitioner and as such, there was prejudicecaused to the petitioner by not allowing her to engage alegal practitioner. But if the senior District Judge, who wasthe Presenting Officer, is taken to be a legal practitioner,then the petitioner herself was also a legal practitioner bybeing a Senior Civil Judge.In this connection, reliance has been placed onvarious judgments.

In the judgment reported in C.L.Subramaniam v.

The Collector of Customs, Cochin[[3]], the delinquentofficer was pitted against a trained public prosecutor whowas not a ‘legal practitioner’. The disciplinary authority didnot allow the delinquent officer to engage a legalpractitioner. The relevant Rule was a portion of sub-rule (5) of Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, whichlays down that the Government servant may not engage alegal practitioner for the purpose mentioned in that clause, unless the Disciplinary Authority having regard to thecircumstances of the case so permits. In the factualmatrix, the Supreme Court found that by denying theservices of a legal practitioner to the delinquent, theauthority had failed to exercise the power conferred on itunder the Rule and therefore, prejudice had been causedto the delinquent by not allowing him to engage a legalpractitioner, which amounted to denial of reasonableopportunity to defend.

On the other hand, the learned counsel forrespondents has relied on a judgment of Supreme Courtin Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay v. Union of India[[4]]. The Rule in this case which was interpreted bythe Supreme Court was very similar to the Rule with whichwe have to deal with in the present case. Para 5 of thejudgment lays down—

“5. So far as the first point is concerned, therelevant rule – which is, Rule 14(8)(a) of theCentral Civil Services (Classification, Controland Appeal) Rules, 1965, applicable togovernment servants – says that:relevant rule – which is, Rule 14(8)(a) of theCentral Civil Services (Classification, Controland Appeal) Rules, 1965, applicable togovernment servants – says that:

“14(8)(a) The government servant may takethe assistance of any other governmentthe assistance of any other government servant to present the case on his behalf, butmay not engage a legal practitioner for thepurpose unless the Presenting Officerappointed by the disciplinary authority is a legalpractitioner, or the disciplinary authority,having regard to the circumstances of thecase, so permits.”

In the present case, the Presenting Officerwas admittedly not a legal practitioner. If, inspite of this, the respondent desired to havethe services of a lawyer, he should haveapplied to the disciplinary authority forpermission. He did not do so. The High Courthas taken the view that the Enquiry Officermust have passed on the respondent’sapplication for the services of a lawyer to thedisciplinary authority and should not havedisposed it of himself. We do not think thatthis approach is correct. The Enquiry Officerwas entitled to consider the application to theextent of deciding whether the PresentingOfficer was a legal practitioner or not and hewas entitled to reject the application since thatwas not so. The respondent was an educatedperson fully aware of the contents of the ruleand ifhe desired the services of a lawyer onany other ground, he should have made anapplication to the disciplinary authority whichhe did not do. The Enquiry Officer cannot beblamed, in the circumstances of this case, forhaving rejected the respondent’s application orfor not having passed on the request to thedisciplinary authority.”

In this case, the Presenting Officer was not a legalpractitioner. Inspite of that, the delinquent officer desiredto have the services of a legal practitioner. The Rule gavepower to the disciplinary authority to consider such arequest but she had not made any request to thedisciplinary authority. Therefore, in our view, thisjudgment is not relevant for the present case. However,we feel that since the Presenting Officer was representedby a Judicial Officer and the delinquent herself was aJudicial Officer, though lower in rank, we do not think thatany prejudice is caused to the petitioner.

The second ground which is agitated during the hearing is that there was bias and the action of therespondents was malafide. But the basis for alleging biasis not stated in the writ petition. Only one paragraph i.e.ground No.v in the writ petition states as under—

“The enquiry officer’s partisanness and prejudice isalso apparent from the fact that the petitioner’sapplication for permission to engage a legalpractitioner letter on 9-7-98 and telegram 13-7-98 wasrejected on 31-7-98 after the closure of the enquiry. The presenting officer being a District Judge who is superior to the petitioner, she is entitled to engage alegal practitioner under sub-rule 8 of rule 20. Theenquiry officer failed to call for the records requestedby the petitioner by her letter dated 9-7-98 andthereby violated the provisions of sub-rule 11 of rule20.”

We have already dealt with the question of not allowing a legal practitioner to appear for the petitioner inthe enquiry. Therefore, the act of the District Judge in notallowing a legal practitioner to represent the petitioner,cannot be a ground for coming to the conclusion thatthere was bias. The allegations levelled against theDistrict Judge, Visakhapatnam in conducting the enquirycannot be gone into because, he has not even beenmade a party to the writ petition and as such, the DistrictJudge, Visakhapatnam had no opportunity to controvertthe allegations levelled against him.

Thirdly, it is contended that the acts and omissions attributed to the petitioner do not constitute misconduct. We have already referred to the charges, which were heldto be proved against the petitioner. The first charge wasthat she had not signed the pay bills on the ground thatthe members of the process establishment had sent a representation to the District Judge against her. Thischarge was conclusively proved during the enquiry. Thesecond charge also related to the signing of bills and theDistrict Judge, Srikakulam himself had deposed that hehad requested the officer to sign the bills on 03.10.1997,but inspite of that, she did not sign the bills till 2 p.m., sothat the bills could not be presented in Treasury on03.10.1997. Third charge was equally very serious,where it was found that the officer had pronounced ajudgment on 24.10.1997 when the judgment had not evenbeen typed. Charge No.4 also was held proved and itwas found that the officer wanted to somehow prevent theAmin to avail the benefits of a G.O. to encash the leave. Charge No.6 also related to preparation of a bill of aprocess server, which was not signed. Charge No.7related to signing of a note with regard to release ofannual increments to the staff. Charge No.8 related to aclaim of T.A. Charge No.9 was a serious charge. Anamount deposited in the State Bank of India, Rajam,amounting to Rs.22,08,000/-, on maturity, was withdrawnby the officer on 24[th] of November 1996 and kept in CCDand again it was put in State Bank of India, Palakonda on

3[rd] of March 1997. From 24[th] November 1996 to 3[rd] ofMarch 1997, the parties who were entitled to the amounts,lost the interest. The parties lost interest for about threemonths and ten days, amounting to about Rs.60,000/-,and the officer did not explain as to why she adopted sucha course. Similarly, another amount of Rs.2,71,209/- waswithdrawn from Andhra Bank, Rajam on 09.12.1996 anddeposited in Vysya Bank, Rajam on 8[th] of January 1997. The District Judge found that there were about 22instances where amounts were withdrawn from the localbanks, kept in CCDs, and thereafter re-invested in otherbanks after lapse of time.

The learned counsel for petitioner submits that theseacts do not constitute misconduct. We are afraid wecannot accept such an argument. The learned counselsubmits that as the petitioner had made certain remarksagainst the members of the staff, therefore, the staff hadganged up against her, which resulted in the enquiry andultimate punishment.

In this case, learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of Supreme Court in P.C.Joshi v. State of U.P.[[5]]It was a case altogether in a different context, where the judicial act of a Judicial Officerwas sought to be counted as misconduct and it pertainedto grant of bail.

He also relied on the judgment in R.C.Sood v. High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan[[6]], wherein initiation of disciplinary proceedings was held bad. On facts, in para24 of the judgment, the Supreme Court came to thefollowing conclusion—

“We have no manner of doubt that there was acomplete lack of bona fides on the part of theHigh Court when it decided on 5-1-1995 toinstitute disciplinary proceedings against thepetitioner. On this ground alone the petitioneris entitled to succeed.”

Reliance has also been placed on the judgment in Yoginath D.Bagde v. State of Maharashtra[[7]],wherein the Supreme Court held that the High Court had a duty toprotect judicial officers of subordinate courts fromunscrupulous litigants and lawyers. It also laid down that it is imperative for High Court to protect its honest judicial officers by ignoring ill-conceived or motivated complaintsmade by unscrupulous lawyers and litigants. There is noquarrel with this principle, but in the present case, the actsof misconduct stand proved against the petitioner.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents relies on a judgment of Supreme Court inThe High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S.Patil[[8]], to canvass that adequacy and reliability ofevidence in a departmental enquiry cannot be gone into inthe writ petition.

They also relied on a judgment of Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Ram Singh Ex-Constable[[9]], to submit that even a single act of misconduct if found to beof grievous nature, may justify dismissal from service.

The judgment in Union of India v. K.K.Dhawan[[10]]

is also relied upon by the respondents, in which it is laiddown that the conduct of an officer in discharge of hisduties and not correctness or legality of his decision, issubject to disciplinary action. In para 28 of the judgment, the Supreme Court held, “It is important to bear in mindthat in the present case, we are not concerned with thecorrectness or legality of the decision of the respondent,but the conduct of the respondent in discharge of hisduties as an officer”. The Supreme Court was dealingwith a case of an Enquiry Officer who had quasi-judicialfunctions to perform. In this context, the Court held, “The legality of the orders with reference to the nineassessments may be questioned in appeal or revisionunder the Act. But we have no doubt in our mind thatthe Government is not precluded from taking thedisciplinary action for violation of the Conduct Rules. Thus, we conclude that the disciplinary action can betaken in the following cases:

(i) Where the officer had acted in a manner aswould reflect on his reputation for integrity orgood faith or devotion to duty;would reflect on his reputation for integrity orgood faith or devotion to duty;

(ii) If there is prima facie material to showrecklessness or misconduct in the discharge ofhis duty;recklessness or misconduct in the discharge ofhis duty;

(iii) If he has acted in a manner which isunbecoming of a Government servant;

(iv) If he had acted negligently or that he omittedthe prescribed conditions which are essentialfor the exercise of the statutory powers;

(v) If he had acted in order to unduly favour aparty;party;

(vi) If he had been actuated by corrupt motive,however small the bribe may be because Lordhowever small the bribe may be because Lord Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in B.C.Chaturvedi v. Union of India[[11]].In para 12 of this judgment, the Supreme Court laid downthe principles governing the judicial review, as under—

“12. Judicial review is not an appeal from adecision but a review of the manner in whichthe decision is made. Power of judicial reviewis meant to ensure that the individual receivesfair treatment and not to ensure that theconclusion which the authority reaches isnecessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges ofmisconduct by a public servant, theCourt/Tribunal is concerned to determinewhether the inquiry was held by a competentofficer or whether rules of natural justice arecomplied with. Whether the findings orconclusions are based on some evidence, theauthority entrusted with the power to holdinquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority toreach a finding of fact or conclusion. But thatfinding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act norof proof of fact or evidence as defined therein,apply to disciplinary proceeding. When theauthority accepts that evidence and conclusionreceives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquentofficer is guilty of the charge. TheCourt/Tribunal in its power of judicial reviewdoes not act as appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its ownindependent findings on the evidence. TheCourt/Tribunal may interfere where theauthority held the proceedings against thedelinquent officer in a manner inconsistent withthe rules of natural justice or in violation ofstatutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiryor where the conclusion or finding reached bythe disciplinary authority is based on noevidence. If the conclusion or finding be suchas no reasonable person would have everreached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere withthe conclusion or the finding, and mould therelief so as to make it appropriate to the factsof each case.”

Many more judgments have been cited at the Bar,but it is not necessary to multiply the authorities withregard to as to what constitutes the misconduct and whatis the scope of judicial review.

For the reasons given hereinabove, we find that neither the impugned order can be quashed on theground that there was any prejudice caused to thepetitioner by not allowing her to be represented through a legal practitioner, nor was there any bias shown from the Enquiry Officer-cum-District Judge, Visakhapatnam or bythe District Judge, Srikakulam under whom the petitionerwas working at the relevant point of time. We also do notagree, for the reasons given hereinabove, that thecharges framed and proved against the petitioner do notconstitute misconduct.

Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

_______________

BILAL NAZKI, J

29[th] December 2006

__________________________________

M. VENKATESWARA REDDY, J

N.B:

L.R. Copies to be marked.

(b/o)

ajr

[1]2001 (3) ALD 625 = 2001 (5) ALT 228 (DB)

[2]2001 (6) ALT 255 (F.B)

[3]AIR 1972 SC 2179

[4]1991 Supp (2) SCC 12

[5](2001) 6 SCC 491

[6]1998 SCC (L&S) 1389

[7](1999) 7 SCC 739

[8]AIR 2000 SC 22

[9](1992) 4 SCC 54(1992) 4 SCC 54

[10](1993) 2 SCC 56(1993) 2 SCC 56

[11](1995) 6 SCC 749(1995) 6 SCC 749