P SRINIVASULU Vs. REGISTRAR ADMINISTRATION HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was a Munsif Magistrate (present designation being Junior Civil Judge) prays for issuance of the Writ to quash the order of the High Court in Roc. No.367/91/B.Spl.(SC), dated 20-2-1995. Disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the petitioner by the High Court into various charges of misconduct and judicial impropriety against the petitioner. Based on the report of the Enquiry Officer viz., II Addl. District Judge, Guntur, the High Court passed the impugned order imposing the punishment of withholding the promotion for five years. The suspension was revoked by the same order and the petitioner was put back to duty. The E.O. held that the charge No.1 and additional charge No.2 were proved to the extent that the Charged Officer disposed of several criminal cases pertaining to the Courts of which he was placed in-charge despite the warning issued by the District Judge in his communication dated 15-5-1991 marked as Ex.P-49. Charge No.2(i) and charge No.3(iv) and additional charge Nos.3, 4 and 6 were also held to have been proved. The said charges are reproduced below: "Charge No.l" That you P. Srinivasulu while working as 1st Addl. District Munsif, Narasaraopet despite of issuance of warning to you by the then District Judge, Guntur in Dis. No.4912 dated 21-5-1992 you have disposed of C.C. Nos.151 to 160 of 1991, 162 and 163 of 1991 on the file of the 2nd Addl. District Munsif Court, Narasaraopet during summer vacation from 20-5-1991 to 2-6-1991 as in-charge of II Addl. District Munsif, Narasaraopet and you have not stated the reasons in the judgment as to under what circumstances you have imposed lesser punishments and fines imposed by you are not uniform and thereby you have committed misconduct and dereliction in discharge of your duties. Addl. Charge No.2: Violating the orders issued by the then District Judge, Guntur in Dis. No.4912 dated 21-5-1991 that you shall not repeat such lapses (i.e., disposing of criminal cases of other Courts without holding full additional charge) thereafter' Charge No.2(i) That on perusal of record in Crl.M.P. No.1116 of 1991 on the file of the Munsif Magistrate Court, Chilakaluripet and the sworn statement of Sri Sk. Basha, Head Clerk, Munsif Magistrate Court, Chilakaluripet which was recorded by the District Judge, Guntur that you Srinivasulu, 1st Addl. District Munsif, Narasaraopet and in-charge Magistrate of Munsif Magistrate Court, Chilakaluripet granted bail in Crl.M.P. No.1116 of 1991 on the file of the Munsif Magistrate, Chilakaluripet as in-charge Magistrate of Chilakaluripet on 30-6-1991 to the 2nd accused who is an Industrialist and a man with material means, go to strongly suggest that the entire affair of surrendering A-2 and obtaining bail orders was made evidently with some pre-arranged plan or on some understanding on his surrender in a crime which was registered for an offence under Section 302, IPC without giving an opportunity to the concerned police would only expose that you have passed such an order dishonestly and on account of the corrupt practice indulged by you and that your observation in the said Crl.M.P. as if the A.P.P. of Asst. Sessions Court, Narasaraopet appeared and argued on behalf of the S.H.O., Chilakaluripet was false and incorrect in view of the Statement of Sri Sk. Basha, Head Clerk, Munsif Magistrate Court, Chilakaluripet and thereby you have grossly abused and misused your Office of Magistrate post. Charge No.3 (iv). That on verification of the report dated 12-9-1991 of the then District Judge, Guntur that in Cr.No.150/91 of Phirangipuram Police Station wherein the 2nd Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Guntur by his order dated 27-6-1991 in Cr.No.2472 of 1991 refused to grant anticipatory bail to the accused on the ground that he has alleged to have inflicted injuries twice with an iron rod on the head of the de facto complainant and that during the absence of Addl. District Munsif, Sattenapalli you have granted bail as in-charge Magistrate to the sole accused on 8-8-1991 in Crl.M.P. No.2710 of 1991 though the A.P.P. made an endorsement on the bail application opposing the same on the ground that it is triable by Sessions Court, and that investigation is not yet completed. Similarly, in Cr.No.31 of 1991 of Phirangipuram Police Station wherein the II Addl. District Judge, Guntur by his order dated 27-6-1991 dismissed the Crl.M.P. No.2468 of 1991 in respect of 3 accused and as not pressed in respect of A-9, A-16 and A-17 and granted bail to A-8 and A-10 to A-16. Subsequently, A-1 approached High Court and filed Crl.M.P. No.1027 of 1991 for anticipatory bail and it was dismissed. Subsequently, A-l surrendered on 8-8-1991 before the 1st Addl. District Munsif Magistrate, Narasaraopet who was placed in-charge Addl. District Munsif Magistrate, Sattenapalli and filed bail application Crl.M.P. No.2718 of 1991. The A.P.P. endorsed on the application opposing the petition on the ground that offence is triable by the Sessions Court and that the accused is aggressive in nature and that investigation is not yet completed and that despite it you have granted bail to A-1 and thereby you have committed misconduct and gross negligence and dereliction in discharge of your duties. Additional Charge No.3: Granting of bails to the accused involved in the offences exclusively triable by Courts of Sessions and where you have no power to try the offences; Additional Charge No.4: Accepting the service of notices on unconcerned persons and passing of orders without hearing the prosecution and without affording an opportunity to the prosecution to address arguments; Additional Charge No.6: Granting bail to an accused person who is involved in an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life by passing orders in several petitions filed by the accused persons, on one and the same day and in quick succession i.e., petition filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. to cause production of the records in other Crime; Petition filed to permit the petitioner's Counsel to go through the records; petition filed to surrender the accused and petition filed for grant of bail and accepting the sureties on sufficient certificates and passing of orders in all the above petitions in utter disregard and violation of Rules and procedure and acted in utter disregard of judicial norms for extraneous and extra-judicial considerations leading to an inference of corruption;

(2.) At this stage, it may be pointed out that what was stated by the Enquiry Officer in the concluding part of the report as regards the proof of additional charge No.3 is contrary to his own findings. His findings in para 15 would unequivocally indicate that the petitioner was absolved of this general charge. He accepted the contention that notwithstanding the fact that the case is exclusively triable by a Court of Session, the Magistrate has got jurisdiction to grant bail. The E.O. however dealt with specific cases in which bail was granted in the cases mentioned under charges 2(i) and 3(iv) and drew an inference that the CO. went out of the way in granting bails apparently for extraneous considerations. So also, the statement of E.O. in the concluding para that additional charge Nos.4 and 6 were proved is not an accurate statement inasmuch as apart from the two instances of granting bails (forming part of charge Nos.2{i) and 3(iv)), in no other instance, the petitioner was found guilty of the irregular grant of bails for extraneous reasons or passing orders without giving adequate opportunity to the prosecution. On the other hand, the findings/observations in paragraph 15 (towards the end) would indicate that the petitioner was absolved of that charge No.6. Thus, there is no independent finding vis-a-vis charge No.6 and even charge No.4 except while dealing with the aforementioned charges 2(i) and 3(iv).

(3.) The High Court was evidently misled by the concluding para of the E.O. and committed the same mistake as E.O, in observing that additional charge Nos.3, 4 and 6 were also proved. The High Court observed: