G RAMA SHARMA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition was initially heard by earned Division Bench of this court comprising of Honourable Sri Justice S.R. Nayak and Honourable Sri Justice Narasimha Reddy and the learned Judges of the Division Bench have gone into the matter in great detail and rendered two separate erudite judgments by elaborately recording two conflicting opinions with regard to the dismissal of a Judicial Officer through G.O.Ms.No.55 Law (LA&J, Cts.CI) Department dt. 7-4-1999. Justice S.R. Nayak after elaborately noticing the facts upheld the dismissal of the petitioner holding that a fair procedure has been followed by the Enquiry Officer while conducting the disciplinary enquiry and findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer as accepted by the High Court are based on substantive legal evidence and there is no failure of justice, holding so dismissed the writ petition. But, however dealing with the same question, Justice L. Narasimha Reddy held that there was denial of fair play and Enquiry Officer violated principles of natural justice by not furnishing necessary documents. Further the learned Judge after going through the evidence held that the irregularities as pointed out in the charges cannot be sustainable and findings of the Enquiry Officer cannot be accepted. Consequently, impugned GO dismissing the petitioner from judicial service held to be not sustainable and allowed the writ petition with a direction that since the petitioner had submitted an application for voluntary retirement which was pending by the time the disciplinary proceedings were initiated, it shall be open for the respondents to take such decision as they deem fit on the application submitted with leave and liberty to initiate any proceedings against the petitioner with reference to the allegations made against him, if there is any other independent material.

(2.) In view of the conflicting opinions on the question raised in the writ petition, the Division Bench directed that the matter has to be referred to another learned Judge and directed the Registry to place the matter before the Honourable the Chief Justice for posting the matter before a third judge for his opinion. In view of placing the matter before the Honourable Chief Justice AR. Lakshmanan (as he then was) posted the matter before him initially and on his elevation, the Chief Justice directed the matter to be posted before me.

(3.) In view of the same, I shall now make an endeavour to deal with the matter separately and attempt to determine the controversy independently.