WP/20238/2001 of M.Rama Murthy Varma Vs The High Court of A.P on 29 December 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA,THE CHIEF JUSTICE

and

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NARAYANA REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO : 20238 of 2001

Between:

M.Rama Murthy Varma s/o Late Sri Nagaiah VarmaSenior Civil Judge KothapetaEast Godavari

AND

..... PETITIONER

The High Court of A.P represented by the Registrar (Vigilance)Hyderabad

.....RESPONDENT

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue an order or direction or Writ particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamusor any other appropriate writ declaring the proceeding ROC.No.1044/98/ VigilanceCell dated 13/01/2000 including proceeding ROC.No. 1044/98/ Vigilance Cell dated16/03/2001 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice andconsequently set aside the same.

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.VIDYASAGAR

Counsel for the Respondent: MR.C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

The Court made the following :

ORAL ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice)

Petitioner while working as III Additional District Munsif, Visakhapatnam wassought to be departmentally proceeded with for the following charge:

“That you, Sri M.Rama Murthy Varma, while working as III AdditionalDistrict Munsif, Visakhapatnam in a suit O.S.No.263 of 1997 on the fileof III Addl. District Munsif’s Court, Visakhapatnam filed by theplaintiffs/petitioners for permanent injunction restraining thedefendants/respondents from interfering with their peaceful possessionand enjoyment of vacant site of Ac.0-73 cents covered by S.No.25/2,temporary injunction was granted in I.A.No.162/97 on 14-2-1997 aftersetting the respondents ex parte; that subsequently thepetitioners/plaintiffs through another Advocate filed an applicationI.A.No.324 of 1997 on 10-3-1997 requesting the court to order recoveryof possession of 1719 sq. yards out of 3533 sq. yds (0.73 cents) of theplaint schedule property from the alleged agent ofrespondents/defendants; that though no note was put up on the saidapplication by the Bench Clerk, you heard the petitioners/plaintiffs’counsel on 12-3-1997 and numbered the said application and later on4-4-1997 you set the respondents ex parte and allowed the petition bypassing a docket order without issuing any notice to the respondentsand signed the Hukum Warrant prepared on 1-5-1997 though nodecree in the said I.A.No.324 of 1997 was prepared authorizing theAmin to take over the possession of the property from the allegedagent of respondents with an oblique motive and for extraneousconsideration which act of yours if proved or established wouldamount to grave misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3 of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.”

The basis for framing the charge was the report of the District Judge,Visakhapatnam. After the aforementioned charge was framed, the petitioner wascalled upon to file his written statement, which the petitioner duly submitted denyingthe charge and pleading not guilty. The petitioner denied that he had misconductedwithin the meaning of Rule 3 of the A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Thepetitioner justified the judicial order passed by him in I.A.No.162 of 1997 andI.A.No.327 of 1997 in O.S.No.263 of 1997. Instead of proceeding further with thematter, the respondent proceeded to impose minor punishment of withholding of oneincrement without cumulative effect. Feeling aggrieved, review application was filed,which was also dismissed.

The order imposing punishment of withholding of one increment is beingchallenged in this petition on the ground that a judicial order was passed by thepetitioner, which, if wrong, would be subject to appeal, review or revision. In theabsence of there being anything on record that this order was passed with anoblique motive or for extraneous consideration, the order imposing punishment isbad in law.

There is nothing on record to suggest or even to give an indication that theorder in I.A.No.327 of 1997 in O.S.No.263 of 1997 was passed with an obliquemotive or for extraneous consideration. In the absence of this motive, it is an orderpassed by a judicial officer in exercise of his jurisdiction as such and any orderpassed on judicial side would be subject to appeal, review or revision as per the lawand for that reason, petitioner could not have been proceeded with departmentallyfor being imposed any punishment since such an order would not attract theprovisions of the Conduct Rules. In ISWAR CHAND JAIN vs HIGH COURT OFPUNJAB AND HARYANA [AIR 1988 SC 1395], the Supreme Court held that if theorders are passed by a judicial officer without there being any corrupt motive, thesame should be overlooked by the High Court and proper guidance should beprovided to the Judicial Officers. We would also notice the fact that the entireproceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the basis of a complaintreceived from local advocates. In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court had given aword of caution that under the Constitution of India, the High Court has control overthe subordinate judiciary. While exercising its control, it is under a constitutionalobligation to guide and protect the judicial officers. An honest and strict judicial officer is likely to have adversaries in the subordinate courts and if complaints areentertained on trifling matters or relating to judicial orders, no judicial officer wouldfeel protected and it would be difficult for him to discharge his duties in an honestand independent manner. An independent and honest judiciary is sine qua non forthe Rule of Law. It is therefore imperative that the High Court should also take stepsto protect honest officers by ignoring ill-conceived and ill-motivated complaints.

Nobody was aggrieved by the order, which was made subject matter of thecharge. Had somebody been aggrieved by the order, the same would have beenchallenged on judicial side. There were no remarks put on record or brought to thenotice of the petitioner that there were some extraneous considerations or either abad motive in passing such an order, in the absence of which, the charge itself oughtto have been dropped. Punishment imposed thus cannot be sustained and liable tobe set aside. Writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside with allconsequential benefits.

___________________

DEVINDER GUPTA, CJ

29-12-2004

_____________________

M.NARAYANA REDDY, J

tvr

To

1. The High Court of A.P represented by the Registrar (Vigilance)Hyderabad 2 The Section Officer, Vigilance Cell, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

3 The Section Incharge, Legal Cell, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

4 2 CD copies.