V.Eshwaraiah, vs The State Of Telangana,
2021 Latest Caselaw 3615 Tel

     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

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

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.

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