Recently, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Kummari Satyanarayana, a Record Assistant in the Mandal Legal Services Authority (MLSA), challenging his termination from service on charges of fabricating complaints against a judicial officer and demanding illegal gratification from bank officials. The Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice Sumathi Jagadam held that the punishment of removal from service was proportionate to the misconduct proved against the petitioner.
The disciplinary proceedings had charged Satyanarayana with three counts, (i) sending false complaints with forged signatures against the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Chairman, Mandal Legal Services Committee (MLSC), (ii) habitual indiscipline, including use of abusive language against staff, and (iii) demanding bribes from State Bank of India (SBI) field officers for releasing award copies in matters settled before Lok Adalats.
While the Enquiry Officer held him guilty on the first and third charges, the second charge was not proved. The District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) subsequently imposed the penalty of removal from service under Rule 9 (ix) of the A.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991.
Satyanarayana contended that the findings were based solely on the deposition of one witness and that the Enquiry Officer had wrongly compared his handwriting with disputed documents instead of referring them to a handwriting expert.
The Bench noted, “This Court is of the opinion that the finding given by the enquiry officer, which was also accepted by the disciplinary authority that the petitioner was guilty of this charge, on the basis of the evidence of PW.6, is correct. A perusal of the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 would only show that these witnesses had been vague in their response and their evidence suggests that they were trying to help the petitioner. On the other hand, the evidence of PW.6 is clear and cogent and we do not find any reason to reject the said evidence, much less, on the ground that the other witnesses had not deposed in a similar manner."
The Court observed that judicial officers are trained to compare handwriting in the course of official duties and therefore reliance on such comparison could not be faulted.
Concluding that the misconduct was grave, the Bench held that “…an employee of the Court, who indulges in creating fake complaints against his superior officers and an employee who demands illegal gratification from the officials of banks, is not a person, who can be allowed to continue in service.”
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, affirming the termination order passed by the disciplinary authority.
Case Title: Kummari Satyanarayana Vs. The State Legal Service Authority and Others
Case No: Writ Petition No: 29466 of 2022
Coram: Justice R. Raghunandan Rao, Justice Sumathi Jagadam
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. K V Raghu Veer
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. S. Lakshminarayana Reddy
Picture Source :
