KISAN Vs. THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner impugns the order of the appellate authority, dated 20.12.2002 modifying the order of the Disciplinary Authority and District and Sessions Judge, Akola dated 31.12.2001 and setting aside the order of penalty of removal of the petitioner from service and imposing the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect.

(2.) Since in the year 1990, the petitioner, was working as a Stenographer in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Karanja (Lad).

(3.) According to the petitioner, there was no complaint against the petitioner in respect of his service from 1990 till May 1998, when the Judge Shri N.J. Bhoyar joined at Karanja (Lad) as Judicial Magistrate First Class. It is the case of the petitioner that the concerned Judge asked the petitioner to do some of his personal duties but since the petitioner did not attend the rest-house, where the Judge was stationed, the said Judge started issuing memos against the petitioner for one reason or the other. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was served with the chargesheet on 27.8.1998 wherein several charges were levelled against the petitioner. According to the charges, the petitioner, while working as a Stenographer was not maintaining devotion to his duties and was not obeying the orders of the Presiding Officer. According to the chargesheet, the petitioner had absented from duty on 4.6.1998 from 2:00 p.m. to 3:20 p.m. without seeking the leave and the Presiding Officer could not render the judgment in the civil suit due to the absence of the petitioner in the Court. It was alleged that the petitioner was behaving with the Presiding Officer very rudely and the petitioner further absented himself from duty for one hour on 14.7.1998 without prior permission and the Presiding Officer - Judge was not able to render the orders and the judgments, in view of his absence. When the Presiding Officer orally asked the petitioner to give his explanation, the petitioner replied in an arrogant manner that the Presiding Officer - Judge should first give a notice in writing. An allegation was levelled that the petitioner arrogantly told the Presiding Officer - Judge that his duties would commence only from 11:00 a.m. in the morning and therefore, the Presiding Officer should not ask about the transcription at 10:35 a.m. An allegation was levelled that on 21.7.1998 the petitioner refused to type the depositions of the witnesses on the ground that it is not his duty to do so. An allegation was also levelled that the petitioner did not reply the notice issued by the Presiding Officer to him. It was further mentioned in the chargesheet that on 11.6.1998 the petitioner disobeyed the orders of another Presiding Officer Shri V.B. Shrikhande, who was posted as a Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division at Karanja (Lad) and refused to take the dictation. Lastly, an allegation was levelled that the petitioner had threatened the Presiding Officer vide reply dated 27.7.1998 that an action would be initiated by him against the Presiding Officer under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Though time and again the petitioner was asked by the Enquiry Officer to submit his written statement, the petitioner refused to tender the written statement on the ground that he was not supplied with the copies of the relevant documents. The petitioner conceded before the Enquiry Officer that he had received the documents with the chargesheet as per the list of annexures and also that he had taken the inspection of certain documents on which the Presenting Officer had not relied upon. The enquiry proceedings were adjourned from time to time but the petitioner did not participate in the same and sought adjournment of the proceedings for cross-examination of the witnesses of the Presenting Officer. The evidence was recorded ex parte as the petitioner was absent and had sent an application for adjournment of the enquiry proceedings on a reason that was not acceptable. Since the petitioner refused to participate in the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer, on an appreciation of the material on record, specially the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the Presenting Officer, held that the petitioner had grossly misconducted himself as he was guilty of dereliction of duties, disobedience or insubordination and the acts committed by the petitioner were not befitting the Government servant. The enquiry report was served on the petitioner and the Disciplinary Authority and District and Sessions Judge, Akola passed the order of removal of the petitioner from the service w.e.f. 31.12.2001. The petitioner challenged the said order in a departmental appeal. The appeal was partly allowed and though the appellate authority held that the charges were duly proved against the petitioner and the petitioner was granted an opportunity to defend the charges, the appellate authority reduced the punishment for removal to the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect after observing that the punishment of removal from service was harsh and disproportionate to the misconduct that was proved. The petitioner has challenged the order of the appellate authority dated 20.12.2002 in the instant petition.