G RAMA SHARMA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by a dismissed judicial officer for a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the notification issued in G.O. Ms. No. 55 Law (LA & J, Cts. CI) Department dated 7.4.1999 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the 1st respondent herein, dismissing the petitioner from judicial service as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution of India and for a consequential direction to the State Government and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the 2nd respondent herein, to accept the resignation submitted by the petitioner on 26.10.1996 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(2.) petitioner while serving as Subordinate Judge (now redesignated as Senior Civil Judge), Narasaraopet, was served with a charge memo dated 10.9.1997 by the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, who was appointed as the Enquiry Officer by the High Court vide its orders dated 21.3.1997, to conduct regular departmental enquiry against the petitioner in respect of the awards passed by him in Land Acquisition matters relating to acquisition of lands submerged due to construction of Priyadarshini Joorala Project. Earlier to that date, the High Court, by its order dated 21.12.1996, had placed the petitioner, who was at that time on leave, under suspension in contemplation of the enquiry and public interest with immediate effect. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner received the transfer order on 9.4.1996 and he was relieved at Gadwal on 11.4.1996 and reported for duty at Narasaraopet. When the matter stood thus, the petitioner applied for leave with effect from 1.8.1996 to 31.8.1996 and subsequently extended the leave up to 31.1.1997. In the interregnum, the petitioner submitted his resignation to the post on 26.10.1996 when he was on leave. As many as 28 charges are framed against the petitioner. They are the following:

(3.) This charge memo was served on the petitioner on 12.9.1997. The petitioner submitted his statement of defence dated 25.9.1997, on 26.9.1997. Not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the High Court directed the Enquiry Officer to conduct regular departmental enquiry against the petitioner. Accordingly, he issued summons to the Chief Ministerial Officer, Sub Court, Gadwal, Mr. A.Rajaiah, Subordinate Judge, Mahabubnagar, who was appointed as the Presenting Officer by the High Court, and also to the delinquent officer, fixing the enquiry on 6.12.1997. On 6.12.1997, the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer. The Presenting Officer as well as the Chief Ministerial Officer, Sub Court, Gadwal, were also present. The Chef Ministerial Officer, Sub Court, Gadwal, was examined as P.W.1 and through him as many as 27 documents were marked as Exs. A.1 to A.27 with the consent of the petitioner-delinquent officer. Although an opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine P.W.1, he did not avail of that opportunity. Immediately after the evidence of P.W.1 was recorded on 6.12.1997, the petitioner-delinquent officer submitted a previously prepared statement styled as written arguments/additional written statement. Subsequently, the petitioner-delinquent sent a copy of his transfer order dated 3.4.1996 transferring him from Gadwal to Narasaraopet, and marked as Ex.B.1 and a sheet containing news items dated 25.10.1997 and 18.9.1997 published in A.P. Times and Deccan Chronicle, respectively and marked as Ex.B.2. The Enquiry Officer, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed before him and on appreciation of the same, in his report dated 27.1.1998, held that all the charges framed against the petitioner are proved. On receipt of the report of the enquiry officer and on independent consideration of the evidence led in the regular departmental enquiry, the High Court came to the conclusion that charge Nos. 1, 12, 16, 17 and 24 are not proved against the delinquent, and as regards other charges, the High Court concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Thereafterwards, the High Court, through its Registrar (Vigilance), issued show cause notice dated 19.3.1998 to the petitioner-delinquent proposing to impose the penalty of dismissal from service as a disciplinary measure and the said show cause notice was received by the petitioner on 21.3.1998. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said show cause notice on 26.3.1998. The High Court, on consideration of the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice and not being satisfied with the same, recommended to the Government to impose the penalty of dismissal from service as a disciplinary measure for the proven misconduct. Accepting the recommendation of the High Court, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 55 dated 7.4.1999 dismissing the petitioner from service by virtue of the power conferred upon it under Clause (x) of Rule 9 of A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1963 (for short, CCA Rules). Hence this writ petition assailing the validity of the said Government Order.