DAVID WILSON K Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by Sri David Wilson, who was at the relevant point of time serving as Sub-Judge in the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Service, assailing the disciplinary action taken by the respondents-Government of Andhra Pradesh and High Court of A.P. removing him from service.

(2.) The background facts leading to the filing of the writ petition be noted briefly as under: When the petitioner was serving as Subordinate Judge at Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, he disposed of, by his judgment and decree dated 18-2-1992, a land acquisition O.P.No. 22 of 1988 on his file awarding enhanced compensation of Rs. 85,000/- per acre and 30% statutory solatium, etc. Thereafterwards, 11 persons, one G. Satyanarayana Raju and 10 others claiming to be the residents of Tadepalligudem sent a petition to the learned District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru, inter alia alleging that the petitioner is a corrupt officer and he awarded heavy compensation to the claimants in O.P.No. 22 of 1988. They sent copies of the same complaint to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice as well as to the Hon'ble Judges of this Court. On the basis of that petition, the High Court directed the then District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru, to conduct a preliminary enquiry. Accordingly, the learned District Judge, West Godavari District conducted enquiry and submitted his report dated 29-4-1992 to the High Court. On the basis of the preliminary enquiry report, the High Court ordered regular departmental enquiry against the petitioner and appointed the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, as the Enquiry Officer to conduct the regular departmental enquiry. Two charges were framed against the petitioner. They read:

(3.) The High Court after receipt of the enquiry report and on consideration of the same, disagreed with the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer on Charge No. 2. In that view of the matter, it issued showcause notice [Order R.O.C.No. 316/92 B.Spl. (S.C.)], dated 19-7-1993 calling upon the petitioner to show-cause within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the notice as to why the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer on Charge No. 2 should not be disagreed with and why the Charge No. 2 should not, for the reasons set out in the Annexure appended to that notice, be held proved.