AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.R. Nayak, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order of the High Court in ROC No.216/97.C.11/1 dated 27.8.1997 confirming the order of the learned District and Sessions Judge Anantapur dated 10.2.1997 communicated through Dis. No. 2061 dated 9.4.1997.
While the petitioner was serving as Junior Assistant in the Court of Munsif Magistrate Madakasira, on a report submitted by the learned Munsif Magistrate Madakasira, the 2nd respondent who is the disciplinary authority under the C.C.A. Rules ordered departmental enquiry against the petitioner and appointed the District Munsif, Madakasira as the Enquiry Officer. During the course of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer framed four charges against the petitioner. The charges read as under:
Charge No.1: That you while working as Junior Assistant in Munsif Magistrate''s Court, Madakasira, incharge of Head clerk Assistant, Record and Library, Munsif Magistrate''s Court, Madakasira, during the period from 5-6-92 to 4-10-93 (the date on which you have proceeded abruptly on leave), you have submitted before the then Presiding Officer, a statement showing the pay particulars of Sri S. Radha Krishna, erstwhile Head clerk of Munsif Magistrate Court, Madakasira, in which you have left out 4 items relating to an amount of Rs. 17,257/- which was already drawn towards the salary of Sri S. Radhakrishna. Therefore, you have been once again directed by the then Presiding Officer to rectify the mistake and to produce a correct statement. On 1-10-1993 you have submitted a revised second statement of pay particulars of Sri S. Radhakrishna, the then Head clerk, in which also you have failed to make entries about 3 items relating to an amount of Rs. 128/- which was drawn towards the salary of Sri S. Radhakrishna, the then Head Clerk, and further you have been directed to compare the revised second statement prepared by you, with that of the pay bill registers maintained in the office, in order to comply with the request of the Munsif Magistrate Court, Uravakonda, but you have failed to do so, thus and there by rendering yourself liable for gross negligence and dereliction of discharging official duties punishable under the C.C.A. Rules.
Charge No.2: That you Sri K. Ganganna, while working as J.A., Munsif Magistrate Court, Madakasira during the period as stated in charge No.1, are in the habit of leaving the office 15 to 30 minutes earlier on every Saturday (as admitted by yourself in your explanation dated 4-10-1993) and that on 29-91993 you have left the office without informing the officer about the compliance of the work entrusted to you, thereby you made the officer to sit waiting for you, even after working hours which amounts to unauthorized absence, gross negligence and misconduct. Thus you yourself rendered liable for punishment under CCA Rules.
Charge No.3: That you while working as Junior Assistant, Munsif Magistrate''s Court, Madakasira, as referred to in charge No.1 supra, you were directed by the then Munsif Magistrate, Madakasira, to bring the transfer orders relating to A.P.P. Grade-II Sri K. Rajasekhara Reddy, erstwhile A.P.P. Grade-II which were communicated to the Court and that you left the chambers of the officer undertaking to produce the same, but till 5 p.m., on that day you have not turned up to submit the above said order copy before the then Munsif Magistrate and that further you have left the office without informing the Munsif Magistrate about the result of the work entrusted to you, which amounts to gross negligence and dereliction in discharge of official duties and thus rendered yourself liable for punishment under the CCA Rules.
Charge No.4: That you Sri K. Ganganna, Junior Assistant while working in Munsif Magistrate''s Court, Madakasira, having failed to comply the directions of the officer to hand overcharge in Dis. No. 1178/8-11-93 through which you were directed to handover charge of your seat and submit your explanation or any reply to the memos (three memos separately issued in Dis. No. 1125/15-1093) which amounts to misconduct and negligence on your part and thereby rendered yourself liable for punishment under CCA Rules.
The Enquiry Officer after conducting departmental enquiry against the petitioner submitted his report styled as order in D.E. No. 3 of 1994 dated 31.3.1995 recording the finding that all the charges framed against the petitioner are not proved. On receipt of the said report, from the Enquiry Officer and on consideration of the same, the 2nd respondent, who is the disciplinary authority not being satisfied with the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer, issued show cause notice dated 25.6.1996 which reads as under:
" I perused the report of the Enquiry Officer and the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and other material papers. The Enquiry Officer has erred in holding that the delinquent is not responsible for the preparation of gross and net amount particulars of Sri S. Radhakrishna formerly Head Clerk of that Court. The particulars were require to draw the difference of salary. Ex.P3 was prepared by the delinquent with his own handwriting and he cannot shift his responsibility on the incharge Head clerk who also put his initials on Ex.P3. The delinquent is expected to be more careful while attending to the financial matters. Hence for the above reasons, I disagree with the findings of Enquiry Officer on charge No.1. So also the Enquiry Officer has failed to appreciate the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 which is cogent and corroborative in every aspect. So I hold that all the charges framed against the delinquent are proved.
Therefore, Sri K. Ganganna, formerly Junior Assistant, M.M. Court Madakasira now working in Additional District Court, Hindupur to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. If no explanation is received within the stipulated time, it will be deemed that he has no explanation to offer and final orders will be passed on material available on record."
The petitioner submitted his explanation to the said show cause notice on 25.7.1996 and on consideration of the explanation of the petitioner as well as the evidence on record, the 2nd respondent passed the final order on 10.2.1997 recording the finding that the petitioner is guilty of all the four charges. The 2nd respondent taking into account the gravity of the mis-conduct committed by the petitioner thought it appropriate to impose penalty of withholding four annual increments with cumulative effect and accordingly passed the final order under Rule 8 (i)(iii) of A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1963
The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order of the 2nd respondent preferred an appeal on administrative side to the High Court. The High Court dismissed the said appeal by its order dated 27.8.1997. Hence this writ petition assailing the validity of the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner and for quashing the orders made by the High Court and the 2nd respondent.
In response to the Rule nisi, the 2nd respondent filed his counter affidavit supporting the impugned action.
We have heard Sri M. Jagdish, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nagarjuna Reddy, learned standing Counsel for the respondents.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the findings recorded by the learned District Judge on charges 1 to 4 are perverse and they are not based on evidence. The learned counsel would also urge that the evidence produced by the petitioner is not properly considered by he 2nd respondent. The learned counsel would next contend that the High Court in passing a cryptic order has violated the principles of natural justice and that order cannot be sustained on the touch stone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner would lastly contend that the penalty of denial of four increments with cumulative effect is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committed by the petitioner and therefore, it is a fit case where this Court should interfere.
We do not find any merit in any of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. We have perused the order of the learned District Judge dated 10.2.1997.
Dealing with charge No.1, the learned District Judge has observed as under:
" Admittedly the delinquent was working as the Assistant under the Head clerk. It is his duty to prepare a true and correct statement as per the records. Admittedly Ex.P3 is not a true and correct statement. Just because no action was taken against the Head clerk, who subscribed his initials, the responsibility of the delinquent does not cease and he cannot be exonerated. No doubt it is a joint and several responsibility to prepare the statement. In view of the fact that admittedly the delinquent has prepared a wrong statement, the Enquiry Officer is not justified in coming to the conclusion that the first charge against the delinquent is not proved. PW.1 is the then Munsif Magistrate, Madakasira and his evidence would prove that the delinquent failed to prepare a true and correct statement and therefore, relying on the evidence of PW.1, I come to the conclusion that the first charge is proved".
Dealing with charge No.2 and 3, after discussing the evidence on record, the learned District Judge recorded his finding holding that the petitioner is guilty of charges 2 and 3. The material consideration of the order reads as under:
The second charge alleged against the delinquent is that he used to leave the office earlier and on 29.9.1993 he left the office without informing the officer and failed to comply with the work entrusted to him. Pw.1 deposed that he directed the delinquent at about 12.00 Noon on that day to bring the Transfer orders of the then A.P.P. Grade-II Sri R. Rajashekhara Reddy. But the delinquent without informing the officer left the office and the officer had to wait in his Chambers.
The third charge is inter linked with the 2nd charge. On that day PW.1 specially directed him to bring the transfer orders relating to A.P.P. Grade-II, which was communicated to the said Court. But the delinquent failed to produce the same. The explanation of the delinquent is that he did not receive such orders. The responsibility of the delinquent is to verify the records and give reply to the officer about its non-receipt of the order. Even though PW.1 directed him to produce the said orders at 12.00 noon on that day, the delinquent not only failed to produce the same, left the office without any information. The explanation of the delinquent is that he was suffering with Asthama and he had pain and therefore, he went to the Medical shop and went home. The delinquent before leaving the office ought to have informed the officer, if he was really suffering with pain. He could not have left the office, when the officer was waiting in the chambers for his reply. The explanation of the delinquent cannot be accepted and the Enquiry officer committed error in relying on the evidence of PW.1 that he did not aware whether the delinquent was in the habit of leaving the office half an hour earlier on Saturdays. When the officer directed the delinquent to produce the transfer orders of the then A.P.P. Grade-II, it is the responsibility of the delinquent to inform whether such orders are received or not, and also to inform that he was leaving the office to take medicine. The officer had to wait in his chambers without any information. Under the circumstances, I believe the evidence of PW.1 and come to the conclusion that the charges 2 and 3 are also proved against the delinquent and the Enquiry officer committed error in holding that the charges 2 and 3 are not proved"
At this juncture itself, it may be relevant to note that the explanation offered by the petitioner that he was suffering with Asthama and had pain and therefore, he went to the Medical shop and subsequently went home was considered by the 2nd respondent and for the valid and cogent reasons given by him he was not persuaded to accept the same.
Dealing with charge No.4, while rejecting the explanation of the petitioner, the learned District Judge has observed as under:
"The delinquent admittedly failed to hand over charge, but contended that he is suffering with Asthama. Asthama is not such a serious disease so as to prevent him from handing over charge and the delinquent could have attended the office and handed over the charge as directed. The Enquiry officer committed error in coming to the conclusion that as he was taking continuos treatment, it was not possible for him to come to the Court to hand over charge and the same cannot be accepted. Relying on the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3, I come to the conclusion that the 4th charge is also proved."
We are of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the learned District Judge cannot be said to be perverse or not based on legal evidence. The explanation of the petitioner in respect of each charge was considered by the District Judge.
It is true that the order made by the High Court as such does not disclose reasons in support of its decision. However, at the time of hearing, the learned Standing counsel for the High Court placed before us the original records of the High Court where the reasons are recorded by a Committee of three Hon''ble Judges of this Court and the record reflects that each of the three Judges of this Court have applied their mind and perused the evidence on record and recorded their satisfaction that the findings recorded by the learned District Judge are sound and valid, where as the findings of the Enquiry Officer could not be sustained.
The High Court in passing the impugned order has confirmed the order made by the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge in his order dated 10.2.1997 has given cogent and acceptable reasons and since the High Court has confirmed the order of the learned District Judge, it was not necessary for it, to give again detailed reasons in support of its opinion. Be that as it may, the remarks are existing in the record placed before us, though the same were not incorporated in the communication sent to the petitioner by the Registrar (Administration).
This takes us to the last contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the penalty imposed on the petitioner is totally disproportionate to the gravity of the mis-conduct committed by the petitioner. The petitioner is denied four annual increments with cumulative effect by way of punishment. This quantum of penalty cannot be said to be totally irrational or would shock the conscience of this Court. Having due regard to the gravity of the mis-conduct committed by the petitioner and since all the four charges framed are held to be proved against the petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the quantum of penalty imposed on the petitioner is just and proper and it does not call for our interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court cannot act as an appellate Court while reviewing the disciplinary action.
In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.