B KISHTU Vs. HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner while serving as Deputy Nazir in the Munsif Magistrate Court, Boath, by the impugned proceedings of the High Court in Roc. No. 500/90-B.Spl (SC), dated 31-1-1994 was ordered to retire compulsorily as a measure of disciplinary action. Hence, this writ petition, assailing the validity and legality of the same.

(2.) The background relevant facts to be stated briefly are as under: The disciplinary authority, namely, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad, 2nd respondent herein initiated departmental enquiry against the petitioner and four others, framing as many as 16 charges. Though, initially the charges were issued against the petitioner and four others, it appears that the enquiry against Sri V. Shankarachary, Munsif Magistrate, Boath was separated from common enquiry and the enquiry was conducted against the remaining four delinquents. Among 16 charges, the petitioner herein was charged with only Charges No. 7 and 8, which read as follows: Charge No. 7: That the then District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad during his surprise visit of M.M.Court, Boath on 8-10-1990 found missing of Kgs. 0-200 gms. of Ganja in CPR No. 37/89 in Cr.No. 2/89 out of Kgs. 1-200 gms., Kgs. 68-550 gms. less out of Kgs. 137.150 gms. In CPR No. 10/90 in Cr.No. 17/89 and the entire case property of Ganja of Kgs. 40-00 in CPR No. 43/89 in Cr.No. 14/89 totally weighing Kgs. 108.750 Gms as per the property register No. 15 of the said Court and you delinquent No. 2 to 5 stealthily sold away the said missing ganja to some Maharashtra people for wrongful gain. Charge No. 8: that on opening of cash iron chest on 19-10-1990 no cash was found in it and you delinquent No. 2 failed to produce Rs. 600.00 being the permanent advance and cash.

(3.) The Enquiry Officer after holding a departmental enquiry against the petitioner and three others, who included two Attenders in the Office of the Munsif Magistrate, Boath recorded, the finding that Charge No.7 was not proved against the petitioner and three others. Similarly the enquiry officer held that Charge No. 8 was not proved against the petitioner. However, when the enquiry report landed before the High Court, on administrative side, this Court disagreeing with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer reappreciated the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that Charges 7 and 8 are proved by legal evidence. In that view of the matter, by common proceedings dated 31-1-1994 the High Court imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement on the petitioner and three others.