Latest Judgments

High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Registrar (Vigilance), Hyderabad v. Ch. Nirmala K.R. Dayavathi & Anr.

November 26, 2021
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20732 of 2014

A. Constitution of India — Art. 226 — Departmental enquiry — Punishment of dismissal — Interference — When warranted — Highly constricted jurisdiction is available under Art. 226 to interfere with an order of punishment passed after holding of a departmental proceeding — However, Art. 226 would permit interference by the court in respect of findings of the enquiry officer and the conclusions of the disciplinary authority arrived at on that basis in cases where the weight of the evidence is opposed to the conclusions recorded rendering the same ex facie erroneous or perverse


B. Service Law — Judiciary — Departmental Enquiry — Proof — Allegation that officer was not sitting on the bench on time and not dictating the judgments to the stenographer and further only pronouncing the operative part of the order without assigning reasons — PW 1 and PW 7 who had allegedly filed the complaints leading did not support the case levelled against petitioner and disowned their signatures in the complaints — Advocates’ clerks, stenotypist, copyist, senior assistants and junior assistants of the court were examined and they stated that officer used to attend the court on time and was prompt in discharging her duties — Stenotypist denied that officer did not dictate the judgments — Also, during relevant period the work of petitioner was found to be satisfactory and average respectively by High Court — Held, High Court rightly concluded that present was a case of no evidence — Therefore, punishment of dismissal from service not warranted


C. Service Law — Judiciary — Departmental Enquiry — Proof — Allegation that the officer demanded bribe in lieu of granting interim relief — Demand was made on 16-11-2007 with the condition that it should be paid before 22-11-2007 — Complainant deposed that she was ready to pay bribe, however, petitioner on her own extended the interim relief till 27-11-2007 even before district judge had intervened in the matter on 22-11-2007 — Attender in the office categorically deposed that on none of the dates in question complainant had visited the office — Also, on 16-11-2007 officer soon after finishing the court work, had left to attend a legal literacy camp — Evidence on record established that the officer herself had written to the district judge to transfer the case from her court — Held, on facts, finding of guilt of enquiry officer, not valid — High Court was justified in setting aside punishment of dismissal

Print 🖨 PDF 📄

(Ranjan Gogoi and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.)


 


High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Registrar (Vigilance), Hyderabad _________________________________ Petitioner


 


v.


 


Ch. Nirmala K.R. Dayavathi & Anr. _____________ Respondent(s)


 


Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20732 of 2014, decided on February 11, 2015


 


(Arising out of Impugned Final Judgment and Order Dated 19/02/2014 in WP No. 27857/2010 Passed By the High Court of A.P. At Hyderabad)


 


The Order of the court was delivered by


Order


 


1. Having regard to the issues involved we would like to briefly indicate the reasons for the conclusions that we have arrived at the end of the elaborate hearing that has taken place.


 


2. Two sets of charges were levelled against the respondent No. 1, a Judicial Officer of the State of Andhra Pradesh. The first (Charges Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 9 of the Articles of Charges dated 19th October, 2006) pertain to the performance and conduct of the Judicial Officer while serving in Bapatla in Guntur District of Andhra Pradesh. The same, inter alia, relate to her not sitting on the bench on time and not dictating the judgments to the stenographer and further only pronouncing the operative part of the order without assigning reasons. The second set of charges pertain to the tenure of the Officer in Warangal. Specifically the charge levelled against the Officer was that she had demanded a bribe of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) for extending an interim order of injunction and had, in fact, detained the person from whom such bribe was demanded in her chamber on 27.11.2007. The said person happens to be an Advocate and the case in question i.e. O.S. No. 593/2007 pertains to her father who was the plaintiff therein.


 


3. Both sets of charges were separately enquired into in the course of two separate departmental enquiries. On the basis of the evidence of the witnesses recorded and other materials, the Enquiry Officer(s) returned a finding of guilt. The reports of the Enquiry Officers were considered by the Administrative Committee and then by the Full Court of the Andhra Pradesh High Court whereafter a decision was taken to impose the punishment of dismissal from service.


 


4. The High Court hearing the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 took note of the entire evidence on record and after a detailed analysis of the same came to the conclusion that the present was a case of no evidence. Accordingly, interference was made. Aggrieved, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, on the Administrative Side, is before this Court seeking leave to appeal against the said order.


 


5. We have read and considered the very elaborate judgment of the High Court and have gone through the reasoning as well as the analysis of the evidence made by the High Court in the order under challenge. Insofar as the first set of charges are concerned, PWs. 1 and 7 who had filed the complaints leading to the initiation of the charges had not supported the case levelled against the respondent No. 1 – writ petitioner. In fact, the said witnesses had disowned their signatures in the complaints. P.Ws. 4 and 5 (Advocates’ clerks), P.W. 8 (Stenotypist), P.W. 9 (Copyist) and P.Ws. 10 to 13 (Senior Assistants and Junior Assistants of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla) who were examined in support of the first set of charges had clearly stated that the respondent – writ petitioner used to attend the Court on time and was prompt in discharging her duties. The evidence on record further discloses that the Stenotypist who was examined as P.W. 8 had denied that the Officer did not dictate the judgments. The High Court also took note of the fact, though in a different context, that during the period from 1.12.2005 to 31.05.2006 and from 01.06.2006 to 30.11.2006 the work of the Officer was found to be satisfactory and average respectively by the High Court. This was both qualitatively and quantitatively.


 


6. Insofar as the second set of charges levelled against the Officer are concerned, it is worthwhile to notice that according to P.W.1 who had levelled the charge of demand of bribe and had filed the complaint leading to the initiation of the departmental proceeding in question, the demand of bribe was made on 16th November, 2007. The said demand of bribe was to be paid on or before 22nd November, 2007 when the injunction matter was due to come up before the Officer for further consideration. Surprisingly, no contemporaneous complaint in this regard was lodged by P.W.1. In fact, P.W. 1 in her evidence herself had stated that on 22nd November, 2007 she was ready to pay the amount but the Officer had extended the interim order until the next date i.e. 27th November, 2007.


 


7. The materials on record would go to show that though the District Judge had intervened in the matter on 22nd November, 2007, even before such intervention the Officer had extended the interim order until the next date i.e. 27th November, 2007. P.W.10 who was an Attender in the Office of the charged Officer had categorically deposed that on none of the dates in question P.W. 1 had visited the Chamber of the Officer. That apart, the materials on record also would go to show that on 16th November, 2007 i.e. the date on which the demand for bribe was allegedly made, the Officer soon after finishing the Court work, had left to attend a Legal Literacy Camp. In fact, injunction was granted on that day itself. P.W. 10 has been categorical in stating that P.W.1 -the complainant had not visited the Officer on the said date or as already noted on any other date. That apart, the evidence on record would establish that the Officer herself had written to the District Judge to transfer the case from her Court.


 


8. On a totality of these materials, the High Court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction had thought it proper to interfere with the punishment imposed. While doing so, the High Court was fully aware of highly constricted jurisdiction available to it under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere with an order of punishment passed after holding of a departmental proceeding. Narrow and limited though it may be it has to be acknowledged that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would permit interference by the High Court in respect of findings of the Enquiry Officer and the conclusions of the Disciplinary Authority arrived at on that basis in cases where the weight of the evidence is opposed to the conclusions recorded rendering the same ex facie erroneous or perverse. This is precisely what had happened in the present case.


 


9. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the present is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. The Special Leave Petition, therefore, is dismissed.


 


———


 


 

You may also like

Exit mobile version