THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.6569 of 2019
ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The Petitioner before this Court, who is a judicial officer, has
filed this writ petition being aggrieved by the order dated
12.03.2019 passed by the respondents inflicting a punishment of
stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect.
The undisputed facts reveal that a notification was issued inviting applications to the post of Civil Judge and the petitioner proved his worth by qualifying the examination and he was appointed by an order dated 21.08.2010. After successful completion of training, he was posted as Junior Civil Judge, Banswada on 01.01.2011 and he has worked at Banswada from 01.01.2011 to 01.04.2014. Thereafter, he was transferred to Gadwal and joined duty on 04.04.2014. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet on 03.05.2018 and as per the imputation of misconduct in the charge sheet, it was alleged that he has misused his official position by utilizing the services of Sri M. Ganga Ram, Police Constable, Pitlam Police Station to drive his personal car for official and unofficial purposes.
The facts further reveal that a departmental enquiry was initiated based upon a letter received by the High Court dated 24.12.2015 from Vysya Sangam, Banswada and, of course, no affidavit was enclosed along with the complaint and it has been 2 brought to the notice of this Court that no such Sangam exists. The fact remains that a charge sheet was issued, enquiry officer was appointed and the enquiry officer has submitted a report, which is on record, holding the officer guilty of the misconduct. The reply of the officer was also taken into consideration and thereafter the competent disciplinary authority has inflicted a punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect by an order dated 12.03.2019.
Learned counsel appearing for the High Court has argued before this Court that there is no procedural irregularity in the departmental inquiry. In the departmental enquiry principles of natural justice and fair play were observed and therefore, the question of interference by this Court does not arise. She has also argued that appreciation of evidence is not permissible by the High Court, keeping in view various judgments delivered from time to time by the Hon'ble Supreme court and therefore, once the enquiry was held as per the prescribed procedure and opportunity of hearing and cross-examination were granted to the employee, the question of interference of this Court does not arise.
It is true that scope of interference in departmental enquiry is quite limited and the appreciation of evidence is also not permissible. However, in case of no evidence or where the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse, this Court does have the power to interfere with the departmental enquiry proceedings. In the present case, an anonymous complaint was made against the judicial officer and the best witness was the constable, who was 3 allegedly used as a driver by the judicial officer. The statement of constable is also on record and he has categorically stated that he never used to drive the personal car of the charged official. In cross-examination he has stated that his father wanted to purchase the car and for the purpose of test drive he drove the car only once that too for a very limited period. Meaning thereby, the driver, who was the main witness in the departmental enquiry, has given a clean chit to the judicial officer. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that two preliminary enquiries have been held by the High Court in the matter. The facts reveal that based upon the perverse findings arrived at by the enquiry officer that too which are based upon no evidence, a judicial officer has been punished by the disciplinary authority.
It is true that the preliminary inquiry reports were marked as exhibits and the author of the reports was examined, but the fact remains that the persons, who are examined during the preliminary enquiry, were not at all examined before the enquiry officer, who conducted the main enquiry. Merely marking those preliminary reports as exhibits and especially in the light of the fact that the constable has categorically stated in the main enquiry that he never drove the car of the judicial officer, the question of punishing the charged official based upon perverse findings does not arise.
Resultantly, the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority is set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 4 The charged official shall be entitled for all consequential benefits flowing out of this order.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ ______________________________ A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 19.11.2021 ES