BALASUDARSHAN B Vs. REGISTRAR M HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order in ROC. ; No. 18/96. C.II/1, dated 30-4-1996 passed by the 1st respondent and to direct the respondents to give all consequential benefits, etc.

(2.) The petitioner states that he was appointed as Copyist on 10-5-1982, and that he was promoted as Typist in the year 1983 and worked in several places in Kurnool District. While he was working as Typist in the Sub-Court at Atmakur, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by the 2nd respondent herein on 10-2-1993. The Principal Subordinate Judge, Kurnool was appointed as an Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry against him. The Enquiry Officer framed seven charges and found charges 3 and 4 proved in his enquiry report dated 22-8-1994 in Enquiry No. 1 of 1993. The 2nd respondent agreed with the Enquiry Officer as regardshis findings on charges 3 and 4, but disagreed with him as regards findings on charge No.5 and found that charge also proved against the petitioner herein in his order in Dis. No. 7822/Estt/95 dated 24-11-1995. It is stated in the said order that on those findings, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why his pay should not be reduced to the minimum in the time scale of pay of Junior Assistant/Typist. After detailed considering (sic. consideration of) the representation of the petitioner to the said show-cause notice, the 2nd respondent held as follows:

(3.) The petitioner questions the said order of the High Court describing it as an order of the 1st respondent i.e., The Registrar (Management). That is not correct. The 1st respondent only purports to communicate the decision of the High Court. That is clear from the statement: "the High Court holds that there is no substance in the appeal."