JUDGMENT [ENTITY], J.
1. The petitioner questions the proceedings in [CASE NUMBER] dated 5-11-1996 issued by the 1st respondent, wherein the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the proceedings dated 13-6-1996 of the 2nd respondent i.e., the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad removing him from service. He was working as Attender in V. Metropolitan Magistrate's Court at Hyderabad when the removal order was made.
2. The petitioner contends that the charge against him was not proved by any evidence on record and that the appellate authority failed to see that the findings given by the 2nd respondent were not based on any evidence and that no reasonable person could come to the said findings on the basis of the evidence on record. He also contends that the appellate authority failed to see that the findings given by the Enquiry Officer were based on surmises and conjectures and not on any evidence on record. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. [ENTITY], tries to persuade us to accept these contentions raised by the petitioner. He also submits that burden was wrongly placed on the petitioner.
3. As the ambit of inquiry is narrow we asked Mr. [ENTITY], who took notice for the respondents, to produce the records and heard Mr. [ENTITY] for final disposal of the Writ Petition.
4. First the facts in brief. One [ENTITY] stood surety for the 2nd accused, [ENTITY], in [CASE NUMBER] on the file of the 5th Metropolitan Magistrate's Court at Hyderabad and he deposited [CASE NUMBER] dated 6-12-1990 for Rs. 2,000/- issued by the Metropolitan Criminal Courts Employees' Co- operative Credit Society Limited ('the Society' for short) in that Court. There were four accused in that case. The case against the 1st accused was disposed of on 12-10-1995 and the case against A-2 to A-4 was split up and numbered as [CASE NUMBER]. Thereafter, [ENTITY] filed a petition seeking return of the F.D.R. on the ground that [CASE NUMBER] was disposed of. That petition was dismissed on 11-12-1995 as the case against the 2nd accused, [ENTITY], was split up and pending in [CASE NUMBER]. It was then noticed that the F.D.R. was not available in the record. The petitioner absented from 11-12-1995 without prior permission and on 18-12-1995 applied for leave from 11-12-1995 to 25-12-1995. The petitioner then addressed letter dated 27-12-1995 to 5th Metropolitan Magistrate that he lent Rs. 3,000/- to [ENTITY] and that the latter gave him the F.D.R. in repayment and that he encashed the F.D.R. and received Rs. 2,985/-. Subsequently he informed that on 30-12-1995 he deposited that amount in the Society. On 26-12-1995, when the petitioner returned to the office after absence, he informed to the section that he found F.D.R.No.24501 dated 10-11-1995 issued by the Society in the Court hall.
5. On these facts being reported to the Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad, he initiated departmental enquiry against the petitioner and appointed the 2nd Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad as the Enquiry Officer. He framed the following charge against the petitioner:
"Charge: That you, [ENTITY] working as Attender in V Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Hyderabad and having access to the office records of V Metropolitan Magistrate stealthily removed [CASE NUMBER] for Rs. 2000/- (deposited by [ENTITY] as surety for [ENTITY] (A2) in C.C27/91 on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Hyderabad) prior to 29th day of November,1995 and encashed it in Metropolitan Criminal Courts Employees' Credit Society Limited on 29-11-1995 and thus committed theft of a valuable security from the records of the Court and dishonestly mis-appropriated a valuable security and thereby committed an act of misconduct in the discharge of your duties as Attender, V Metropolitan Magistrate's Court and rendered yourself liable for disciplinary action."
The Enquiry Officer communicated the said charge to the petitioner and required him to submit his written statement. On the application of the petitioner he was allowed to engage an Advocate. The petitioner filed his written statement dated 8-3-1996. There in he stated that [ENTITY], who stood as surety for the 2nd accused in [CASE NUMBER], was a resident of Malakpet Colony, that he knew him since a long time and that during the first week of November, 1995 [ENTITY] approached him for hand loan of Rs. 3,000/- and that he lent the said amount to him. He further stated that on 27-11-1995 when he insisted [ENTITY] to pay him back the debt, the latter handed over to him the F.D.R. in question and also paid a sum of Rs. 100/- towards total discharge of his debt, that [ENTITY] informed him that [CASE NUMBER] was disposed of and that the F.D.R. in question was returned to him, and that he believed the same and presented the F.D.R. to the Society and countersigned on it and withdrew the amount payable thereon. He also denied that he had anything to do with the Court records and that his duties did not give him access to the Court records. As regards his absence from 11-12-1995 to 18-12-1995, he stated that he went to Vijayawada to see the dead-body of his wife's uncle and that he was not in a position to inform the same to the authorities before he left. He, therefore, wanted to drop the charge against him. The petitioner did not examine any witness in the enquiry to establish his case. He offered to give evidence and so his statement was recorded. In that statement he denied that he stole the F.D.R. He admitted that he encashed the F.D.R. after it was given to him by the surety [ENTITY] on the evening of 27-11-1995. He went to the Society on the same day, but he was asked to come on 28-11-1995 and that he was asked to bring an authorisation letter. Upon his request [ENTITY] gave him the authorisation letter. He took that authorisation letter to the Society on 29-11-1995 and took the cash. He went on leave from 11-12-1995 to 18-12-1995 as he had to go to Vijayawada due to the death of his wife's uncle and as he was held up he continued on leave till 25-12-1995. On 26-12-1995 when he returned to the office he found one F.D.R. under the Bench Clerk's table in the Court hall and he handed it over to the Bench Clerk. The President of the Society informed him that he may lose the job and, therefore, on 30-12-1995 he paid the amount in the Society. He also signed a letter typed in English without knowing its contents. He did not know how [ENTITY] got the F.D.R. and he had not encashed the F.D.R. with the knowledge that it was a Court document. Questioned by the Enquiry Officer, he stated that he did not ask [ENTITY] how he got the F.D.R. back. He admitted that the records would be brought to the Court hall and taken back to the section by the Attenders. He also stated that he did not find any F.D.R. underneath the Bench Clerk's table or elsewhere earlier. He also stated that he did not know [ENTITY], Advocate. The President and the Secretary of the Society were examined by the prosecution officer.
6. The Enquiry Officer gave his report dated 20-5-1996. The Enquiry Officer stated that as the petitioner denied knowledge of some of the documents produced in the enquiry and alleged that his signature was obtained by the authorities of the Society forcibly, the then President and the then Secretary of the society were examined. Exs.A-1 to A-7 were the documents marked. Ex.A-1 is the F.D.R. in question dated 6-12-1990. Ex.A-2 is the refund request letter signed by [ENTITY] ([ENTITY]). On the reverse of Ex.A-1 also there is a signature of [ENTITY] and this signature both in Exs.A-1 and A-2 was identified by [ENTITY], Advocate on 28-11-1995. Ex.A-3 is the authorisation letter given by [ENTITY] describing himself as a resident of Himayatnager, Hyderabad and authorising [ENTITY], Advocate to draw the amount of the F.D.R. on his behalf. It bears the signature of [ENTITY] and the petitioner. Ex.A-4 is the debit voucher dated 29-11-1995. It bears the signature of receiver [ENTITY] identified by [ENTITY]. It shows that a sum of Rs. 2,997/- was paid to [ENTITY] through [ENTITY] (the petitioner herein). Ex.A-5 is the letter dated 19-12-1995 addressed by the 5th Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad to the Manager of the Society. Ex.A-6 is the reply dated 30-12-1995 of the Secretary of the Society stating that the F.D.R. was presented for encashment on 29-11-1995 and that the amount was paid to [ENTITY] (the petitioner herein), a member of the Society as per the authorisation letter of [ENTITY] in favour of [ENTITY], Advocate and that [ENTITY] identified the signature of [ENTITY] ([ENTITY]) on 28-11-1995 and that the petitioner since informed the Society that [ENTITY] had been avoiding to receive the payment from him and that as such the petitioner deposited the sum of Rs. 2,997/- in the Society; the same was kept in a suspense account. Ex.A-7 is the letter in English dated 30-12-1995 signed by the petitioner which according to him was signed without knowing its contents. It is stated therein that on instructions from [ENTITY], Advocate on 28-11-1995 he received on 29-11-1995 a sum of Rs. 2,997/- from the Society for being paid to the Advocate. It is also stated therein that the depositor [ENTITY] presented the F.D.R. through [ENTITY], Advocate who identified his signature and that as [ENTITY] refused to receive the amount he was depositing the same with the Society and that it should be accepted.
7. The Enquiry Officer observed that the petitioner had not placed any material to show that the surety was indebted to him a sum of Rs. 3,000/- and that excepting his own statement he had not placed any evidence to prove that the F.D.R. was delivered to him by the surety [ENTITY]. He was not examined by him. He also observed that though the petitioner claimed in his statement that [ENTITY] was resident of Malakpet Colony, [ENTITY] showed himself to the Society as resident of Himayatnagar. The Enquiry Officer also observed that if really [ENTITY] was indebted to the petitioner and he delivered the F.D.R. to the petitioner in discharge of that debt, he would have straightaway authorised the petitioner to receive the payment from the Society when admittedly petitioner was a member of the Society and that there was no reason to authorise an Advocate - [ENTITY] to receive the payment. The Enquiry Officer also noticed that in the written statement the petitioner stated that [ENTITY] informed him that [CASE NUMBER] was disposed of and he got the F.D.R. returned to him, but in the enquiry the petitioner stated that he did not know how [ENTITY] got the F.D.R. and that he did not ask him how he got the F.D.R. The Enquiry Officer also noticed that though in his written statement the petitioner pleaded that he had no access to the Court records in the enquiry he admitted that Attenders bring the records to the Court hall and also take them back to the section, thereby admitting that he had access to the records of 5th Metropolitan Magistrate's Court in which he was working as Attender and that the F.D. Rs. submitted by sureties were being kept in the concerned case records only at the relevant time. The Enquiry Officer concluded, on the basis of the material on record, that since the petitioner was the beneficiary on account of encashment of F.D.R. and since nobody else was shown to be responsible for the same, it must be necessarily inferred that the petitioner himself had removed the F.D.R. from the case records. In so concluding, he also relied on the fact that the petitioner himself stated that on 26-12-1995 he found another F.D.R. and since nobody else was shown to be responsible for the same, it must be necessarily inferred that the petitioner himself had removed the F.D.R. (pertaining to [CASE NUMBER]) under the table of the Bench Clerk and that he handed it over to the Bench Clerk. The Enquiry Officer also relied on the fact that at the time when the loss of the F.D.R. in question was noticed by the Court, the petitioner absented himself unauthorisedly from his duties and that though the petitioner stated that one of the relations of his wife died and he wet to Vijayawada, no material was placed to support the same.
8. The 2nd respondent communicated the enquiry report to the petitioner and through his proceedings dated 25-5-1996 called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service on the charge proved against him. The petitioner gave his reply dated 3-6-1996. The grounds relied upon by him are the same as are now being pressed before us. He contended that there was no evidence for finding that he removed the F.D.R. from the Court record even though the records were not in his custody and that mere encashment of the F.D.R. by him could not be the basis for concluding that he removed the F.D.R. from the court record. The 2nd respondent, in his proceedings dated 13-6-1996 considered all aspects of the matter in detail and while agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer concluded as follows:
"The foregoing discussion therefore shows that the delinquent had failed to prove his version that he came into possession of the F.D.R. in a lawful manner. The delinquent is admittedly working in V Metropolitan Magistrate's Court in which Court the F.D.R. was deposited by the surety concerned. The delinquent as D.W.I admitted that in the course of his official duties he will be carrying files from one place to another in the Court. Therefore while discharging his official duties he had got access to the Court records. He must have stolen the F.D.R. in question and later encashed it. It was not stealthily removed, the F.D.R. in question it would not have come into his possession inasmuch as he miserably failed to prove that [ENTITY] entrusted the F.D.R. to him. There need not be direct evidence to show that at a particular point of time on a particular date the delinquent removed the F.D.R. from the Court record stealthily. The attending circumstances established beyond all doubt in the present case clearly point out that the delinquent had come into unlawful possession of the F.D.R. in question. He would have come into unlawful possession only if he had stealthily removed the F.D.R. from the Court file."
In the result, he ordered removal of the petitioner from service instead of dismissal. The High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and confirmed the order of removal holding that the petitioner's version that F.D.R. was given to the petitioner by [ENTITY] for encashment towards discharge of his loan appeared to be false and that [ENTITY] could not have access to the records and that the petitioner himself must have taken the F.D.R. from the record and that, therefore, he committed theft of F.D.R. which he admittedly encashed and then went on leave.
9. Mr. [ENTITY], learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that though before the Enquiry Officer two witnesses were examined by the presenting officer, their evidence was not discussed. He submits that the President of the Society, Sri [ENTITY] was examined as P.W.I and he stated that two days prior to 29-11-1995 the Advocate [ENTITY] came to the Society with the F.D.R. in question and sought repayment of the amount and that the same was refused. The learned Counsel, therefore, contends that it was [ENTITY] who was having the F.D.R. and, therefore, he should have been examined to explain how he came into possession of the same and that burden of proof could not be cast on the petitioner to explain how he came into possession of the F.D.R. when in fact two days earlier, according to P.W.I, the advocate [ENTITY] was having possession of it.
10. Going through the enquiry report we find that the Enquiry Officer did consider the evidence of P.W.1. The Enquiry Officer explained how P.Ws.1 and 2 came to be examined and discussed the evidence of P.W.I and observed as follows:
"It is seen that the delinquent in the first instance by his explanation dated 27-12-1995 addressed to the V Metropolitan Magistrate and also in his written statement and his evidence during the enquiry proceedings, has set up a case that [ENTITY], surety was indebted to him in a sum of Rs. 3000/- and that to discharge the debt the said surety gave him the F.D R. in question and also Rs. 100/- in cash and that he encashed the F.D.R. in the Society. However, a letter said to have been signed by the delinquent and addressed to the Manager of the Society shows that the delinquent received the amount from the society on the instructions of Sri [ENTITY], Advocate for being paid to the advocate and that as the said advocate refused to receive the amount, the delinquent deposited the amount into the Society. However, the delinquent in his written statement has alleged that he was forced, to sign on that letter and that he did not properly understand the contents of that letter which is marked as Ex.A-7. Even in his evidence, the delinquent has stated that the President of the Society informed him that he may lose the job and therefore he deposited the amount in the Society and that at that time, he signed a letter typed in English and that he was not aware of the contents of the letter. It is further seen that while cross- examining [ENTITY], the then President, it has been suggested that the President took the signature of the delinquent on that letter forcibly as payment had been made to the delinquent without proper verification of the authorisation letter. The said suggestion has been denied. The authorisation letter which is marked as Ex.A-3 shows that a person by name [ENTITY] has authorised [ENTITY], Advocate to receive the payment on his behalf. However, the President has endorsed on the authorisation letter that the amount may be paid to the delinquent. Since the delinquent denies knowledge about the contents of Ex.A-7 letter and since the same is an(in) English language and since the suggestion (that Ex.A-7 letter has been drafted to over-come payment of the amount to the delinquent contrary to the directions in the authorisation letter Ex.A3), put by the Counsel cannot be brushed aside, I feel that it would not be reasonable to attribute the contents of Ex.A-7 letter to the delinquent."
11. Thus it is seen that no reliance was placed on their evidence and the case of the petitioner was considered on the basis of its own merit and probabilities. In view of the fact that the petitioner admitted that he himself handed over the F.D.R. to the Society and withdrew the money, the Enquiry Officer observed that the petitioner did not place any documentary proof to show that [ENTITY] was indebted to him and he did not adduce any evidence to establish that the F.D.R. was handed over to him by [ENTITY]. We carefully examined the reasoning of the Enquiry Officer which. was accepted by the respondents. We find that the Enquiry Officer gave good reasons for concluding, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, that because the petitioner admitted that he encashed the F.D.R. and he accepted that Attenders had access to the records, it must be inferred that he must have removed the F.D.R. in question from the case record.
12. Mr. [ENTITY] questions the findings of the Enquiry Officer, which formed the basis for the order of the 2nd respondent as confirmed by the 1st respondent, only on the ground that the finding on the charge is not based on any evidence on record and that the enquiry officer failed to consider the evidence of P.W.1 and that the burden was wrongly placed on the petitioner to establish that he did not commit theft. He relies on the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of A.P. v. [ENTITY], , Union of India v. [ENTITY], and the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in [PRECEDENT]. He draws our attention to the observations in [ENTITY]'s case that the High Court may undoubtedly interfere where the conclusion of the departmental authorities on the very face of it was so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion. But in that case a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court also held that the departmental authorities were, where the enquiry was otherwise properly held, the sole Judges of facts and if there be some legal evidence on which their findings could be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence was not a matter which could be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. The Supreme Court also held that the High Court was not constituted in a proceeding under [SECTION] of the [ACT] a Court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant, and that where there was some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry had accepted and which evidence could reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer was guilty of the charge, it was not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under [SECTION] to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence.
The learned Counsel relies on the following observations of a five Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in [ENTITY]'s case:
"In dealing with writ petitions filed by public servants who have been dismissed, or otherwise dealt with so as to attract [SECTION], the High Court under [SECTION] has jurisdiction to enquire whether the conclusion of the Government on which the impugned order of dismissal rests is not supported by any evidence at all and there can be little doubt that a writ of certiorari, for instance, can be claimed by a public servant if he is able to satisfy the High Court that the ultimate conclusion of the Government in the said proceedings, which is the basis of his dismissal, is based on no evidence."
The Supreme Court applied this test as follows:
"That takes us to the merits of the respondent's contention that the conclusion of the appellant that the third charge framed against the respondent had been proved, is based on no evidence. The learned Attorney-General has stressed before us that in dealing with this question, we ought to bear in mind the fact that the appellant is acting with the determination to root out corruption, and so, if it is shown that the view taken by the appellant is a reasonably possible view this Court should not sit in appeal over that decision and seek to decide whether this Court would have taken the same view or not. This contention is no doubt absolutely sound. The only test which we can legitimately apply in dealing with this part of the respondent's case is, is there any evidence on which a finding can be made against the respondent that charge No. 3 was proved against him. In exercising its jurisdiction under [SECTION] on such a plea, the High Court cannot consider the question about the sufficiency or adequacy of evidence in support of a particular conclusion. That is a matter which is within the competence of the authority which deals with the question; but the High Court can and must enquire whether there is any evidence at all in support of the impugned conclusion. In other words, if the whole of the evidence led in the enquiry is accepted as true, does the conclusion follow that the charge in question is proved against the respondent?"
These principles were reiterated by another [ACT] Bench of the Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT], ; also in [PRECEDENT], , [PRECEDENT], , etc. See also the decision of one of us ([ENTITY], J.,) in [PRECEDENT] affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in [PRECEDENT]. To the same effect is the decision of another Division Bench of this Court in [PRECEDENT] (supra).
13. But we do not find that the present case is one of no evidence for the finding of the Enquiry Officer on the charge against the petitioner. We are of the view that the learned Counsel for the petitioner has missed the point. The finding of the Enquiry Officer mainly turned on the fact that the petitioner did not establish that [ENTITY] gave him the F.D.R. in question as claimed by him. In view of the fact that the petitioner admitted that he had the F.D.R. and encashed the same and received the amount, how he got possession of the F.D.R. was a fact which was particularly within his knowledge and, therefore, the burden was on him to establish the same. [SECTION] of the [ACT] provides that "when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him". In [PRECEDENT], , the Supreme Court was considering a case where huge amounts were alleged to have been embezzled by payments made of certain drafts, alleged to have been issued by the Reserve Bank of India (R.B.I), by the accused who were employees in Sub-Treasuries. The payment of the drafts was admitted to have been made by the accused and signatures or thumb impressions of the payees had been shown in the records of the Sub-Treasury. It was proved that the said drafts were not genuine and that they were not issued by the R.B.I. The entries in the records of the Sub-Treasury were admitted to be correct by the accused and those entries showing the names of the payees and the amounts were proved to be false and incorrect beyond doubt. The Supreme Court held that, in that background, it was no longer the duty of the prosecution to show as to who made the said entries. The Supreme Court further held as follows:
"The above facts being in the special knowledge of the accused persons, it was incumbent for them to disclose the names and identity of the person who had identified the payees and to establish their innocence by producing such person or the payees in defence evidence. [SECTION] of the [ACT] clearly provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him."
[ENTITY] case (9 supra) is a criminal case. The strict standards of proof beyond doubt in criminal trial are not attracted to departmental enquiries. In the recent case of [PRECEDENT], the Supreme Court reiterated the distinction as follows:
"But the disciplinary proceedings are not a criminal trial. Therefore, the scope of enquiry is entirely different from that of criminal trial in which the charge is required to be proved beyond doubt. But in the case of disciplinary enquiry, the technical rules of evidence have no application. The doctrine of "proof beyond doubt" has no application. Preponderance of probabilities and some material on record would be necessary to reach a conclusion whether or not the delinquent has committed misconduct. The test laid down by various judgments of this Court is to see whether there is evidence on record to reach the conclusion that the delinquent has committed misconduct and whether a reasonable man, in the circumstances, would be justified in reaching that conclusion."
14. In the light of these principles we have to examine the findings in the present case. In the present case also the burden was on the petitioner to satisfactorily establish that he got the F.D.R. in a legitimate manner. He set up the case that he gave a hand loan to [ENTITY] and that the latter purported to repay it by handing over the F.D.R. to him and by authorising him to encash it, but he failed to establish this version - this is a case of no evidence whatsoever adduced by the petitioner to establish his case. He could not establish how [ENTITY] could have legitimately got the F.D.R. when his application for return of it was dismissed on the ground that the case in which he stood as surety for the 2nd accused was still pending. He admitted that Attenders had access to the records and at the relevant time the F.D. Rs. were kept in the case records. Therefore, it would preponderantly probablise that the petitioner stealthily removed the F.D.R. from the relevant case record. This is clearly supported by the subsequent conduct of the petitioner in abruptly going on leave and in finding - as he himself put it - another F.D.R. under the desk of the Bench Clerk first thing on 26-12-1995, the day he joined back. Therefore, we are clearly of the view that the Enquiry Officer and the respondents cannot be faulted in holding that the charge against the petitioner was proved. The burden being on the petitioner, this is a case of no evidence produced by the petitioner to establish his version and how he got possession of the F.D.R. We are, therefore, satisfied that the conclusion drawn by the respondents is not arbitrary or unreasonable on the facts and circumstances of the case as would warrant interference under [SECTION]. No other vitiating factor is pressed before us.
The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
15. Before we close this case, we have to point out that the record placed before us discloses that all may not be well with the working of the Metropolitan Criminal Courts Employees Co-operative Credit Society Limited. [ENTITY] only singed as [ENTITY] and he was identified by the advocate [ENTITY] in Exs.A-1 and A-2. The date in Ex.A-2 was written in red as 28-11-1995 and 28 was corrected as 29 in black. The authorisation letter Ex.A-3 had no date and how the Advocate [ENTITY] came to be authorised by [ENTITY] to draw the F.D.R. amount is an enigma. The debit voucher dated 29-11-1995 before the signature of [ENTITY] on the revenue stamp and it was also identified by the Advocate [ENTITY]. The fact that the F.D.R. got out of the records of the Court and the manner in which it was encashed warrants a thorough enquiry as to the manner in which the F.D.Rs. are obtained from the Society with signatures identified by Advocates and with the authorisation letters for repayment being given to the same Advocates who identified the signatures. The then President of the Society was C.M.O. of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate's Court and he stated in his evidence that he did not allow the F.D.R. to be encashed by the advocate when he earlier produced it but later allowed it to be encashed when produced by the Attender. Subsequently the amount was received back. This clearly indicates that the petitioner may not be alone in this nefarious activity and that there are bound to be other compatriots. All the members of the Society are employees of the Criminal Courts. As this relates to the working of the Metropolitan Magistrate Courts in Hyderabad city, the Registrar (Vigilance) is directed to place this matter before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate action to be initiated in this regard immediately.