WP/14271/2009 of MR. MD, SAMIUDDIN, (Died pe Lr, P 2 to 5) Vs THE HIGH COURT OF A.P. REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR VIGILANCE AND ANO on 2 February 2026

1. t\,4R. t\4D. Samiuddin, (Died pe Lr, P 2 to 5), S/o.lt/d. Yousufuddin Fi/o. 20- '1 '13/1 , Sharadanagar, Road No.4, Behind Sharada Talkies, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad.

2. Mrs. NoorJahan Begum, w/o Md. Samiuddin, aged 60 years, Occ Household, R/o H.No. 2O-1131f , Sharadanagar, Road No.4, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad- 500060.

3. tVlrs.Gousia Begum, D/o Md. Samiuddin, aged 48 years, Occ Tgagh-e1.fl9 H.No. 20- 1 13/1 , Sharadanagar, Road No.4, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad-500060

4. It4rs. Arshiya Begum, D/o tVd. Samiuddin, aged 41 years, Occ Adv^o-cate, R/o H.No. 16-ti-650, Water Tank Road, Old Malakpet, Hyderabad-500036

5. IVlrs. Nazia Begum, D/o Md. Samiuddin, aged 31 years, Occ Household, PJo H.No. 20-l 1 3/i, Sharadanagar, Road No.4 Dilsukhnagar, llyderabad-500060 (Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are bioughl on records as Lrs of deceased Petitioner, is per C.O. dtO4-11-2025, vide-|.A. No.1 of 2025 in W.P. No-.14271 of 2009) .....PETITIONERS 1- THE HIGH COURT OF A.P. REP, BY ITS REGISTRAR VIGILANCE AND ANO, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Registrar Vigilance

2. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Law Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an order direction or writ of CERTIORARI and after calling for the I I I ! i II I

W records quash the orders passed in G.O.Ms.No. 117 Law )epartment dt. 5-1 1-

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI GOOA SIVA, SENIOR CO( NSEL REPRESENTING SRI VENKAT RAO PATIL Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI SUMANTH RAVUF:t COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI BATHULA RAJ KIRAN Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : G.P FOR LAGISLATIV|: LAW The Court made the following ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.1427L of 2OO9 DATE: o2.02.2026 Between: Md. Samiuddtn (dted) & others ...Petitioners AND The High Court of A,P. and another ,.,Respondents ORDER: (As per the Hon'ble Si Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda) Heard Sri hda Sioa, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Venkat Rao Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Sumanth Ranrurl, learned counsel representing Sri Bathula Rai Kiran, learned Standing Counsel for the High Court appearing for respondent No. 1.

2. The instart writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief/ s, '/i2.,--.- PaEe 2 of L7 PSK) & NNR) wP,14271-200!) ''......isnre an order direction or writ of certiorat i 'nd ofter calling .for the records qtnsh the orders passed i,t ('i.O Ms No ll7 Lutr Deportmcnl, dateLl 05.11.2001 and 1 .t.v othcr order or orders in the inleresl qfj uslice. "

3. The G.O Ms No.117 Law (LA&.r COURTS.Cl) Department, dated 05. lI.2OO4 was issued un j:r clause (viii) of Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Servicr'r (CCA) Rules, 1991, basing on the letter issued by Regisl r ar (Vigilance), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, vide D.O.Lr.l o.ll97 l2OO3- Vigilance Cel1, dated 16.09.2OO4 recomm: tding to the Government for issuing necessa,ry orders imposing the penalfy of compulsory retirement from seryice r pon the officer for allegation of misconduct

4. During the pendency of the writ peti ion, petitioner No. 1/deceased died on 17 .O2.2O25. Petitioner ,{os.2 to 5 were brought on record as legal heirs of petition 3 ' No. 1 , vide IA No.1 of 2025, dated O4.1I.2025 and permitr'd to prosecute the writ petition. It is brought to notice o1 the Court that petitioner would had been retired from servi, e, if he rvas in service after attaining the age of supe -annuation on 30.06.2010

PaBe 3 of 17 PSK) & NNR) wP-14271-20d)

5. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner No.1/deceased (hereinafter referred as'petitionerJ was initially appointed as Lower Divisional Clerk on O1.03. 1976 in High Court of Andhra Pradesh, thereafter he was promoted to the post of Section Officer. In June 1996, he was appointed by transfer as Munsif Magistrate, while the petitioner was working as XII Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, the High Court on considering the suo-motu report, called for remarks from the petitioner, vide High Court proceedings dated 08.08.2003. The petitioner in turn submitted his remarks, dated t9.08.2003 on the report of Metropolitan Session Judge, Hyderabad. Thereafter, the report of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge and remarks of the petitioner were placed before Administrative Committee on 02.09.2003 and the Administrative committee resolved to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by framing appropriate articles of charges and to call for written statement.

6. The Registrar (Vigilance) issued Article of Charge, vide ROC No.1l97 l20}3-Vigilance Cell, dated 15.10.2003 alleging that the petitioner did not record the statement of Sri K. Vijay \---

PSK,I & NNR) w P_14271_2009 Srinivas, Sub Inspector of Police, Saidabad F :lice Station- cum-Investigation Officer in CC Nos.1110, 11i 1, llL2, 1113/2000 and 464 12O01. The said Invesli aation Officer appeared before petitioner on 26.08.2002 as L witness artd gave evidence in CC No.1110 of 2001 and 109 of 2009. Despite the request made by the concernerl Advocates to record the evidence of the Investigation CI jcer in other connected Calendar Cases viz., l11O to I 13/2OOO and 464 l2OOl, the petitioner directed the Benc- Typist of XII Metropolitan Magistrate to prepa,re copies o' depositions of Investigation Officer in CC Nos.llLOl2OOl r-rd 1109/2000 and treat them, as if the same had been recorr ed in the other connected calendar cases, without actually- examining the witness in open Court in those cases. 7 . In reply to the article of charge I :amed against petitioner, the petitioner submitted a det I led statement, dated 11.11.2003 denying the charges levelerl against him. In pursuant to the same, an Enquiry Officer u a r appointed who conducted a full-fledged enquiry by er rmining seven witnesses and marking Exhibits P.I to P.21 rn behalf of the department. -.-- wP_14271_2009

8. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report, d,ated 27.04.2004, holding that the single charge framed against the officer u,as proved. Based on the said enquiry report, a further explanation rrlas called for from the petitioner, and the petitioner submitted his explanation, vide representation dated 27 .O4 .2OO4 . Being unsatisfied petitioner's explanation, the High Court vide order dated I2.Oa.2OO4 , placed the petitioner under suspension in the public interest pending final orders. Thereafter, High Court sent a recommendation to the Government, vide letter dated

16. Og.2OO4 for issuing necessary orders imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement from service upon the petitioner' Accordingly, the Government issued G.O'Ms' No.117, Law(LA&J COURTS.Cl) Department, dated 05.11'2004, imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement from service. g. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner hled a review application seeking reconsideration of the decision. Since there is no orders were passed on the review application till the date of frling of the present writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking to set aside G'O'Ms' 1 17, dated

PSK) &NNR) wP 14271 2tXB

05. 1 1.2004 imposing the penalty of compuls r ry retirement from service upon the petitioner.

10. l,earned Senior counsel appearing for l-re petitioners submitted that the statement of Sri Vij av Srinivas-cum- Investigation Officer was recorded oo 20.06.2t) )2 and denied the allegations that he has not recorded the s ,irtement of K. Vijay Srinivas and contended that the same e: e manipulated subsequently by other employees for r,thom lr r could not be found fault. He further contended that the che rges which are made against petitioner that he did not recorc the statement of Investigation Officer in four CC cases i.e , CC Nos.l 1 1O, 1111, 1112, ll13 of2OOO and directed the or: Sri Muqdoom Hussajn, Bench Typist to prepare the deu rsitrons of the Investigation Officer and place the copies ol' c epositions as if they were recorded in the said CC cases.

11. Learned Senior counsel contended that the entire ora-l and documentar5r evidence including the stat r ments recorded during the enquiry would disclose that the <[ ,positions of Sri K. Vtj ay Srinivas-Investigation Officer we::r: recorded on a computer, corrections were made by the chri ged officer, and \-

PSK) & NNRJ wP_74271_2009 certificates were signed at the end of those depositions' Further, in the enquiry, the Investigation Ofhcer in his statement before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge stated that he has signed the depositions marked as PW3 to PW7 and admitted that the signatures appearing on the depositions in C.C. Nos. 1100 to 1113 of20OO and 464 of 2001 belonged to him, however the Enquiry Offrcer failed to appreciate the categorical statement of Sri Vrjay Srinivas-Investigation Ofhcer that the signature appearing on the depositions were indeed his signature and that there was no irregularity on the part of the charged officer and the punishment of compulsory retirement is wholly disproportionate, discriminatory, and unjust. L2. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that the report of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge clearly indicates that certain members of the court staff were responsible for tampering u'ith the court records, that apart, the entire enquiry report, the sworn statement of witnesses and the evidence recorded during enquiry would clearly establish that members of staff and the Assistant Public Prosecutor are responsible for placing copies of deposition of \

PStt! & NNR,! wP_r4271-20(E witnesses Sri Vijay Srinivas recorded on 26.0 i.2OO2 in CC Nos. 11O/2001 and 1lO9 I2OOO as well as in he connected case records.

13. Learned Senior Counsel further contender that accused were examined under Section 313 of the Crinr nai Procedure Code on 23.06.2OO3, nearly ten months after t re evidence of witness Sri Vij ay Srinivas was recorded. The lI rquiry Officer, upon perusal of the case records, found r o material to indicate any ulterior motive or extraneous c: -rsicleration on the part of the accused and in the absence ol such evidence, the accused cannot be held liable for the acts allegedly committed by the stalf members. He further :ontended that Enquiry Officer, instead of conhning the enqL iry for framing to single charge but has framed three issues e.l ,d proceeded to record evidence on three issues, thereby travr I ing beyond the scope of the charge. L4. Learned Senior counsel further cont( nded that the petitioner in his reply dated 22.07 .2004 has s1 ecificalll, stated that he \ ras not afforded an opportunity t c cross-examine PW.7, however, this aspect was neither cc r sidered by the

--i-:-::€:

PSK) & NNR) wP_r4271-2009 competent authority and he also placed reliance on judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No.15393 of 1996 and prayed to allow the writ Petition'

15. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 contended that judicial service is calling of the highest order requiring a stringent standard of commitment, rectitude and devotion towards duty. The Administrative Committee not only reviews on the judicial u'ork front, but also takes into consideration of the general information of the candidates that has been gathered through discreet enquires pertaining to his reputation, conduct, probity and integrity before arriving at a judicious decision, as to whether the oflicer is fit to be continued in service in public interest as an officer or not. It is settled legal position and it is weli recognized that the High Court's exercise administrative, judicial and disciplinary control over the District judiciary' The learned Standing Counsel further submits that the writ petition is devoid of merits and prayed this Court to dismiss the writ petition. I i : i I I I I i I i I

wP 14271 200!)

16. Perusing the submission made by both he counsels, the point w-hich would arise for considerati,) r before this Court is: '' ll/hether the puni.shmenl of compulsory re tirement it,r, tt.setl upon lhe pelitioner, htLsed on the enquiry reporl suhm,t :d by the Enquiry Of.ficer, is ststainable in law."

17. Admittedly, there is no dispute that the retirioner was working as XII Metropolitan Magistrate, at th: relevant time and on perusa1 of record, it discloses that a omplaint was received by the Registrar (Vigilance) from tu'c advocates, Sn T.Shiuanand and Sn Someshutar Rao Varan, al eging that the depositions of Sri K. Vijay Srinivas, Sub-lnsp, ctor of Police, Saidabad, rvho was the Investigating Officer, r,, :re brought on record in C.C. Nos. 1110 to 1113 of 2O0O a-r., 464 of 2OOl. which were part of a batch of criminal casc , connected to C.C. No. 1l 10 to 1113 of 2OOl without the saL,, witness being actually examined before the Court in tL r se cases and subsequently the judgment was delivered b',. convicting the accused therein to undergo religious imprisonr renr for 3 years due to which injustice was caused to the accr sed in the said cases. As the evidence of witness was ,/.. no1 exannined, but through manipulation brought on record anc a-lso the court

PSKJ & NNR) wP 74277 ZOO9 records were also manipulated to convict a person and thereby his personal life and liberty were curtailed due to miscarriage ofjustice

18. It is pertinent to mention herein the recording of the Enquiry officer at paragraph No.39, which is reiterated herein under for ready reference:

39. But it is to be seen that P.Ils.I and 2 did not ullribute any ulterior motives to be charged OJticer .lbr placing Ex.PJ lo Ex-P7 deposition inCC Nos.l110 to I ll3 of2000 and 161 o/'2001 as rhe deposition of Mr.Vijay Srinivas. The eviLlence placed on record hy lhe Presenting Oficer u,on't reveal anv muLq/idet or ttlterior motive on the part of the churged oflicer in doing so. Bul the same proves lhal lhis conduct of the Chtu'ged Officer amounts to lack oJ' sense of Propriety, di.tciPline and devotion to his dutl' v'hich is expecled from a Judicial Olficer and lltttr this conduct of the charged Officer resulled in lhe miscurrioge oJ justice.

19. Considering the findings given by the Enquiry Officer, the respondents ought not to have imposed such a ha-rsh punishment of compulsory retirement from service without there being any such misconduct or report '*'hich forced the respondents to impose such ha-rsh punishment.

20. It is pertinent to mention here that, it is not the case of the respondents that earlier also the petitioner was involved \

Page 12 of L7 PSK) & NNR,I wP 14277 2009 in dishonesty or had any bad record of corrupt ion or there is any laxi(y in disposal of the cases. Prima rfie: e, there is no malafide or uiterior motives to charged offic:r lor placing Ex.P3 to P7 depositions in CC Nos. 1110 to 11 3 of 2000 and 464 of 2OOl as the deposition ( f K. VUay Srinivas/ Investigation Officer and also in tlt: enquiry, the Investigation Ofhcer in his statement before tl e Metropolitan Sessions Judge stated that he has signed rhe depositions marked as PW.3 to PW.7 and admitted tha. the signatures appearing on the depositions in C.C. Nos. O0 to 1 1 13 of 2000 and 464 of 2001 belonged to him.

21. The enquiry report which placed by th3 enquiry officer would also shou,s that there was no malafidr: ; on the part of the charge officer but there is a frnding that , rere is a lack of sense of propriety, discipline and devotion to his dun. u,hich is expected from a judicial officer and w.t.i :h amounts to judicial dishonesty and grave misconduct. Therefore, the punishment which is imposed in the abse::e of an1. such ulterior motives and dishonesty on the par t of the charged officer will defeat the principles of natural lustice a,r-rd the charge which was framed even it is pro r :d, punishment

PSX) & NNR,! wP 14271 2009 which is imposed by the respondents i.e., imposing a penalty of compulsory retirement from service upon the officer appears to be on the higher side, considering the gravity of the alleged misconduct.

22. The second limb which needs to be look into is that, when the petitioner did not record the statement of Sri K.Vtjay Srinivas, Sub-Inspector of Police, as alleged, but there is no such record to show that the said Advocates made a complaint or raised an objection prior to or during the pendency of the trial and before the pronouncement of the order of conviction and complaint was made after the order of conviction, which can be assumed that the complajnant are waiting for the hnal order and after the pronouncement of order, the complainant aggrieved by the said order subsequently made a complaint against petitioner

23. It is pertinent to mention here the judgment rendered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in ViJag Singh Bhadauriga a. State of Mad.hga Pradesht, the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh held that the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot sit in appeai 1 2025 SCC Online MP 3832 a I

wP_14271_2009 over flndings of fact unless there is a clear viorz,r ion of rures or principles of natural justice. The court furth ,r stated that even when misconduct is proved, the punish j ent must not be so harsh as to be disproportionate to the gravity of the charge and if it shocks the conscience r f the Court, interference is warranted and the operative pa- rgraph Nos.11 to 15 are hereunder reproduced: I l. l.he Inqttirl' Of/icer considered the entire materiol c d therealier suhmitled his enquiry report dated 15.01.2007. After t onsideration ol the et,idence in detail, the Inquiry Oficer found pro,, d thL,chctrge agoinst the petitioner. Afier issuance of show cause ntice lo tlle petitionar ot to why enquiry reporl be not acceptetl, t rc impugnetl order was pus.red by the District & Sessions Judge, Bht nl. I 2. fu far as thc .findings of Inquiry Olficer are conce -t c.l, lhe sante has been recorded on lhe basis of material svctilablc o t rec.ord and inadequuc.v tt/'cvitlence cannot be subjecl malter oJ. lt licial revieu and the ltigh Coru1 can inter/bre y.ith the order of pt.t rshment onll in c'ase of vir otion ofthe provisions ofrules or prinr:i,t cs oI natural .iuslice ura prot,cd. Thi.s court cannol exercise its 1u-;dicrion in a pctition undar Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of Intlit os uppellatt, outhority. This court can intet.fere only i,[ stutu,r r_y, t.ules rn. regulation.s ure ./bund to be yiolated. When the lu.t perttits tlrc compelenl authority lo take oction against the delirutt t tt person.[or his misconduct, no interference in the firuling : calletl fnr Consequentll,, sts /ar as tha finding o/ miscondtct i,s : tncerned, y,e are in ugrcemcnt u,ith the Disciplinary Authori\,.

PSK) & NNR) wP_74271_2009

13. However, looking to the charge of misconduct, the punishment of dismissal appears to be disproportionate. The allegation against the petilioner u'os that he failed lo reach al VIP Guest House on linr and therefore, the .ludge of Allahabad High Court could not board lhe lrain as scheduled. ln our considered opinion allegalion is not sfficient for dismissal of the delinquent from the service.

11. The punishment of removal from lhe service is in outrages defines of logic and is shocking and if the punishment imposes b'' the Disciplinary Authority shocks lhe conscious o.f the Cour4 it would be appropriate to direct the Disciplinary Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed and to impose appropriate punishment u,ilh cogent reasons in support thereof.

15. For the aforesaid reasons, though we uphold the .findings / misconduct but set aside the quantum ol punishmenl and rcntit lha matter to the disciplinary aulhority to reconsider lhe quantum of punishment in the light of allegation of misconduct proved against the petilioner. Said exercise be completed wilhin o period ol threc months from the date of receipl of certified copy of this ctrder. Pelitioner will be reinstated v,ith immediale e.fJbct, however, he u,ill not be entilled.for back wages applying the principle of 'no t,ork rut pay

24. In such case, this Bench is also of the opinion that it can be understood that when there are no extraneous considerations and the said matters were being led to conviction and it does not amounts to miscarriage of justice, for the reason that there is provision to assail the said i iri

PSKJ & NNR"T wP 14271 20tB conviction orders before the Appellate Court ty raising the same pleas

25. In the absence of any such motive, tt- e punishment which is imposed by the respondents agains t the petitioner appears to be harsh in nature and disproport onate between the allegations which are leveled against the pr titioner and by no means or reasons, awarded punishment (ri nnot be called proportionate to the alleged misconduct. As sr ch, this Bench is of the opinion that the punishment which is, mposed by the respondents against the petitioner as to t re compulsory retirement from service deserves to be set asict

26. For the above said circumstances, tlt : order of the compulsory retirement from service of the :elitioner, uide G.O.Ms.No.l77 Law (LA&J Courts.Cl), Drl artment dated 05.1 1.2004 is liable to be set aside and accor 1ingly set aside and directing the respondents to regularize tl e service of the petitioner No. l/deceased from the date of s,r tspension order uideROC No.1197 of 2Oo3-Vigilence Cell datt:r 12.08.2OO4 tlll the date of his retirement on attain i : I the age of superannuation without there being arry l onetary benefit I Ii I

wP_14271-2009 under the said policy and on the principle of "No uork No paA". However, the said service of the petitioner No.1/deceased shall be considered for the purpose of pensionar5r benehts by taking it as a qualified service of pension and other pensionar5r benehts including the family pension to their legal heirs.

27. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, misceilaneous applications, if any pending, shall stald closed. S SD/. C. DEEPIKA STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

1. The Registrar Vigilance and ANO, HIGH COU R,T O To SA SECTION OFFICER A.P. High Court Department, Secretariat,

2. The Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, M* Buildings, Hyderabad Hyderabad.

3. Two CC's to G.P FOR LAGISLATIVE LAW, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT)

4. One CC to SRI VENKAT RAO PATIL, Advocate [OPUC]

5. One CC to SRI BATHULA RAJ KIRAN, Advocate [OPUC]

6. Two CD Copies I

HIGH COURT DATED:0210212026

ORDER

WP.No.14271 of 2009 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. ( t4 oo't : ', i,I 202t z * {' Oi-, t tlE t, \ x i i i I I I I