S S HARI PRASAD Vs. DISTRICT SESSIONS JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings of the second respondent dated 11. 07. 2007 whereby and whereunder the application filed by the petitioner to condone the delay in his appearance and permit him to appear before the enquiring authority in the matter of regular departmental enquiry ordered by first respondent was rejected. The petitioner also assails the proceedings of first respondent dated 30. 07. 2007 whereby and whereunder the application of the petitioner which was filed by way of appeal against the proceedings of the second respondent was rejected. Along with the said order, a Xerox copy of the proceedings dated 27. 01. 2006 placing the petitioner under suspension was communicated to him.

(2.) THE petitioner at the relevant time was working as Superintendent in the Court of iii Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka. He was an accused in Crime No. 346 of 2005 filed by punjab and Sind Bank under Sections 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner went on extraordinary leave from 19. 09. 2005 and later came to know that the first respondent initiated disciplinary action and placed him under suspension by an order dated 27. 01. 2006 on the ground that a criminal case is registered against him. Charges were framed, and the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam was appointed as an Enquiry Officer to enquire into allegations and charges against the petitioner and another co-employee. Petitioner statedly made a representation to permit him to participate in departmental proceedings and also submit written statement. He also prayed to stop further disciplinary proceedings till he is permitted to submit a written statement. As noticed supra, the said request was rejected by the second respondent as well as the first respondent.

(3.) LEARNED District Judge has filed a counter affidavit in which the circumstances and events leading to the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and another employee are traced. Insofar as the same is relevant to the controversy in the writ Petition, it is alleged that the second respondent issued notices under Rule 20 (7)of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereafter called, CCA Rules), that notices were returned unserved as the petitioner and another were absconding, and as they failed to submit written statements, the Enquiry Officer issued notices under rule 42 (iii) of CCA Rules by causing publication of notices in Andhra Pradesh gazette on 24. 08. 2006, and as the petitioner failed to appear, he cannot now be permitted to participate in the enquiry. Along with the counter affidavit, the respondents have filed various documents including the statement of articles of charges (at page Nos. 77 to 91 of paper book ). A copy thereof is also served on the learned Counsel for the petitioner.