A MOHAN REDDY Vs. REGISTRAR ADMINISTRATION HYD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of dismissal passed by respondent No.2 in his proceedings No.6370, dated 13-9-1988 as confirmed by respondent No.l in his proceedings No.5665/88-C.Special, dated 21-2-1989 is challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as an Amin in Judicial Department in the year 1962 and later on promoted as Junior Assistant in the year 1976 and his services were regularised in that category, but he was reverted to the post of Amin in the year 1981. The petitioner asserts in his affidavit that he was discharging his duties sincerely and honestly, but his co-workers cast their evil eye upon him and accordingly they began to carry tales against him to his immediate superior officers. He was, therefore, visited with some minor punishments like stoppage of increments and censures. It is stated in his affidavit that he lost more than 10 increments during his service of 24 years and he submitted several representations to the respondents No. 1 and 2 explaining the circumstances that led to the above punishments, but his representations have not been considered or disposed of so far. When he was reverted in 1981, he preferred a departmental appeal which was negatived and thereupon he filed Writ Petition No.5664/1981 which was also dismissed. He then preferred Writ Appeal No. 1223/ 1983 which was allowed and the respondents were directed to consider his case as and when his health improves and his turn for promotion is reached. He happened to file Writ Petition No.6754/1985 against Mr. A.Reddeppa Sastry, the then Sheristadar and that also was held in his favour. Therefore, the said Sheristadar and some others developed grudge and they conspired to send him out of the Department and thus Mr. Reddeppa Sastry created two proceedings of the High Court and sent them to the District Court, Chittoor. Then respondent. No.2 appointed one Enquiry Officer to conduct departmental enquiry against him and after a detailed enquiry, the Enquiry Officer suggested that a police investigation may be ordered. A police case was booked against him under Sections 466, 468, 471 and 420 of Indian Penal Code basing upon the report of Enquiry Officer. He raised an objection to thejurisdiction of the Court in which the charge sheet was filed. Even then the trial was held and he was convicted by the trial Court. Respondent No.2 dismissed him from service basing on the aforesaid conviction withouteven issuing a show cause notice to him and hence he violated the principles of natural justice. He approached the Supreme Court after the conviction was confirmed by the High Court in a Revision Petition, but he did not succeed. Hence, he filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus declaring that the order of respondentNo.2 in the impugned proceedings and order of respondent No. 1 confirming the aforesaid order of respondent No.2 are in violation of principles of natural justice and liable to be set aside and that he is entitled for all consequential benefits including reinstatement.

(3.) Respondent No. 1 filed a counter on behalf of both the respondents and averred that the petitioner has not made any valid grounds for grant of any relief and denied all the averments and allegations against the respondents. At the outset it is averred that the writ petition is hopelessly barred by limitation and liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. It is then asserted that the petitioner has been a chronic delinquent and the impugned order has been passed after following the procedure and after giving him a fair opportunity. The averments in paras 1 and 2 of the affidavit are more or less admitted. It is added that the petitioner misbehaved with a Process Server by name G. Jeeviah during working hours by beating him with a chappal and a departmental enquiry was ordered and the petitioner as well as the Process Server were found guilty of misbehaviour. The same Enquiry Officer was also entrusted with the enquiry against the petitioner regarding fictitious orders brought into existence by him and after conducting enquiry, he opined that a police complaint is called for and accordingly police complaint has been lodged to the Special I.G. of Police (Crimes). After investigation, a charge sheet was filed in the Additional Munsif Magistrate's Court at Srikalahasti and the same was registered as CC.No.81/ 1987 for offences under Sections 466,468, 471 and 420 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and after full trial, the petitioner was found guilty of the charges under Sections 466 and 471 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and payment of fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 466 of Indian Penal Code and to undergo imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 471 of Indian Penal Code. The conviction was confirmed by the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor in Criminal Appeal No. 119/1988 and then by this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.331/1990. The averments that his co-workers carried tales against him and that various punishments were imposed on him due to malafide intentions are baseless and misconceived. As regards his reversion from Junior Assistant to Am in it is stated that it was done at his request and thereafter the High Court directed the District Judge to consider the case of the petitioner on merits in accordance with the directions given by this Court. Turning to the charge sheet filed by the CBCID it is averred that after a thorough investigation, the CBCID authorities came to a clear conclusion that the petitioner had forged an order purported to have been issued by the High Court in ROC.No.3364/ C3, dated 25-9-1982 directing the District Court to reinstage the petitioner as Clerk and accordingly the charge sheetwas laid and he has been convicted under Sections 466 and 471 of Indian Penal Code which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 119/1988 on the file of First Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor, and Criminal Revision Petition No.331/1990 on the file of High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The allegations of the petitioner are, therefore, baseless and that the matter was referred to CBCID on the recommendation of the Enquiry Officer on the administrative side and that the enquiry report dated 10-12-1984 in enquiry No.3-A/ 84 was communicated to the petitioner in dis.No.8719 of the District Court, Chittoor, dated 22-12-1984 directing him to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service for his misbehaviour and fradulent acts of sending fictitious orders purporting to have been sent by the High Court. The petitioner submitted a written explanation stating that the conduct attributed to him in fabricating orders of the High Court and trying to make such orders for taking postings was not investigated by the concerned police and therefore, no punishment was called for and subsequently he was dismissed from service with effect from 5-9-1988 taking into account all the above circumstances and the misconduct of the petitioner in forging the orders of the High Court. It is specifically averred that no notice need be given to the accused (petitioner) before his dismissal as he was convicted by the competent Court. The petitioner preferred Administrative Appeal against the orders of his dismissal and the same was dismissed by the High Court on administrative side. It is, thus, contended that the petitioner does not deserve any indulgence in this Court in view of the nature of offences committed by him and in view of judicial discipline.