REGISTRAR HIGH COURT Vs. B SANJEEVALAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant No.2 is the District Judge, Anantapur. Appellant No.1 is the Registrar of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Appellant No.2 passed the impugned order of dismissal from service against the respondent in D.No.2/91, dated 22-1-1992 which came to be confirmed by appellant No.l in the appeal filed by respondent in Roc. No.l797/92/C.Spl. (Con), dated 21-10-1992. The orders of the appellants were challenged by the respondent in W.P. No.16668/1992. That writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge by his orders dated 25-10-1994 remitting back the matter to the appellant No.2 for reconsideration of the question of penalty from that of the dismissal to any other reasonable penalty and that order of the learned single Judge is assailed in this writ appeal.

(2.) At the relevant time, the respondent was working as the Head Clerk in the District Munsif s Court, Kadiri in Anantapur district. Surprise checks were made by the District Munsif on 15-12-1990 and 18-12-1990 which revealed that the respondent had not accounted for certain amounts of cash, nor deposited them into Treasury in accordance with Rules. After a show-cause notice to him and after obtaining the explanation, the District Munsif reported the matter to the District Judge. The allegations against the respondent were also verified through a Special Auditor by the District Judge. Having found aprima facie case of against the respondent on the allegationsof misconduct of misappropiration and dereliction of duty, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent in D.E. No.2/91 by appellant No.2 and Article of charges was issued to him. He denied the charges and proposed to have an oral and personal enquiry into the allegations of misconduct of the charges. The Additional District Judge, Hindupur was appointed as an Enquiry Officer by appellant No.2. After holding an enquiry into the charges against the respondent by the Enquiry Officer by affording all reasonable opportunities to him including the assistance of an Advocate to defend him, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 11-10-1991 to the appellant No.2 holding that some of the charges were proved against the respondent.

(3.) A show-cause notice dated 24-10-1991 was issued to the respondent by the appellant No.2 as to why the report of the Enquiry Officer should not be accepted and as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The respondent submitted his reply to the show-cause notice. The appellant No.2 accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer and passed the impugned order of dismissal of the respondent from service dated 22-1-1992.