(1.) The petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorari quashing the order in proceedings Dis.No.3267/97/A-1, dated 21-4-1997 of the 1st Respondent i.e., the District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda District, imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement on him with effect from 30-4-1997.
(2.) Even though the petitioner could have preferred an appeal against the said order to the 2nd respondent i.e. the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, without availing that alternative remedy he approached this Court directly by way of the present Writ Petition. We asked the learned Counsel for the petitioner as to why the petitioner had not resorted to the alternative relief available to him. The learned Counsel stated that the order of the 1st respondent was perverse and his findings were not supported by any material on record and as it was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and consequently of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, because the petitioner was deprived of his livelihood by the impugned order of compulsory retirement, he had chosen to approach this Court directly. We also informed the learned Counsel that all that could be placed before the appellate authority and that if the petitioner desired, we would allow the Writ Petition to be withdrawn so that the alternative remedy could be availed of by him. The learned Counsel did not respond to that and insisted that we should go into the merits of the matter. That is how we have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner to see whether any prima facie case is made out to establish that any of the material findings of the 1 st respondent could be interfered in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution i.e., of judicial review.
(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner took us through the impugned order as also the report of the Enquiry Officer. It is not the case of the petitioner that any of the principles of natural justice and fair play were violated by the Enquiry Officer or the 1st respondent. A faint contention has been raised in the affidavit in support of the Writ Petition that the Enquiry Officer could not have framed the charges. But, the learned Counsel did not press that contention before us - and rightly so, because under the rules applicable and followed by the Enquiry Officer, he was not precluded from framing the charges.