BALA KAMASWARA RAO Vs. GOVT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by a former District Munsif assailing G.O.Ms.No. 42 Law (LR&J) Courts-C Department dated 29-2-2000 imposing punishment of compulsory retirement from service with immediate effect as a disciplinary measure for a proved misconduct. The challenge to the proceedings Roc. No. 449/93 Vigilance Cell/B.Spl. dt.2-4-1996 issued by the Registrar (General), High Court of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad, the 2nd respondent herein, is misconceived inasmuch as the said order was subsequently set aside by the High Court itself on the representation made by the petitioner dated 8-7-1996 by its order dated 21-10-1999. The petitioner has also sought for quashing of the extension of periods of suspension pending departmental enquiry by orders dated 3-1-1994, 28-7-1994, 31-1-1995, 1-8-1995 and subsequent similar orders issued from time to time up to 29-2-2000.

(2.) The petitioner while working as Munsif- Magistrate, Zahirabad, Medak District was suspended pending enquiry on 14-7-1993 by proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent dated 20-7-1993. The 2nd respondent appointed Mr.M.Venkateswara Reddy, Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad as Enquiry Officer to conduct regular departmental enquiry against the petitioner after framing necessary charges on the basis of the report of the District Judge and the enclosures appended thereto. Accordingly, the Enquiry Officer issued a charge memo dated 16-10-1993 containing as many as 8 charges. The charges are following:

(3.) The Enquiry Officer after holding a regular departmental enquiry held that only charges 1, 3(a), 3(b), 4(b), 4(c ), 6 and 8 are proved and the remaining charges are not proved. The High Court, on receipt of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and after due application of mind, found that charge No.6 framed against the petitioner-delinquent is also not proved. The resultant position is that only charges l,3(a), 3(b), 4(b), 4(c) and 8 are proved. Having regard to the gravity of the proved misconduct, the High Court thought it fit to impose the penalty of compulsory retirement on the petitioner. Accordingly, by its order dated 2-4-1996, imposed penalty of compulsory retirement from service as a disciplinary measure. The petitioner subsequently submitted a representation dated 8-7-1998 contending that the High Court was not competent to pass the order imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement as a disciplinary measure and such order could validly be passed only by the Governor in the light of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in K. David Wilson vs. High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The High Court, on consideration of the representation of the petitioner dated 8-7-1996 and in the light of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in David Wilson's case (supra), by its order dated 21-10-1999 set aside the earlier order dated 2-4-1996. The enquiry report and the recommendation of the High Court were forwarded to the Governor and the Governor accepting the recommendation of the High Court passed the impugned G.O.Ms.No. 42 dated 29-2-2000 imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement on the petitioner as a disciplinary measure. Hence this writ petition assailing the validity of the said order.