THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.601 OF 2005 Dated:21.09.2011 Between: M.Subba Rao .. Petitioner And The Director General and Inspector General of Prison and Director of Correctional Services, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.601 OF 2005 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S. Rao) The petitioner at the relevant point of time was the Deputy Superintendent of Sub Jail, Chintapally, Visakhapatnam District. He was indicted for the charge of making false allegation against the superior officer. In the charge memo dated 21.05.1994, it is alleged that on 24.04.1994 the petitioner made allegations against the District Sub Jails Officer, which is a very serious misconduct. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, but he did not submit any statement of defence to the charge memo. Therefore, an enquiry was conducted and by an order dated 09.01.1996 the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect against the petitioner. The petitioner went in appeal before the first respondent. The same was dismissed on 16.01.1998, aggrieved by which the petitioner filed O.A.No.5364 of 1998. By an order dated 17.12.2003, the learned Tribunal dismissed the same observing that the disciplinary procedure was followed and that the same is not vitiated by any error. In this writ petition filed against the order of the learned Tribunal, the counsel for the petitioner raised two submissions. First, he would contend that the second respondent who is the disciplinary authority, being the reporting authority, the entire disciplinary enquiry was vitiated and secondly, the punishment imposed against the petitioner is high and disproportionate to the charge. The same questions were raised before the learned Tribunal. The Tribunal dealing with these aspects observed as under. As could be seen from the material papers available on record and the averments made in the petition and counter, it is clear that certain allegations seems to have been made by the applicant against the higher authorities, which were prima facie found to be ill-founded. So, explanation was called for from the applicant, but, the applicant did not submit his explanation. Once again another opportunity was given, which he did not avail, even after that the matter was considered by the conference and after the minutes were supplied to him, which is not disputed. So there are no procedural lapses in this matter, in conducting the enquiry. In this view of the matter, conclusions were drawn. When the petitioner was reluctant and did not even actively participate in the disciplinary proceedings after receiving the charge memo, it is too late for him to raise a submission that the reporting authority himself cannot be the disciplinary authority. Indeed, the allegation made by the second respondent that the petitioner made unfounded desperative allegations against the superior officer and when he himself is the disciplinary authority, the doctrine of necessity would apply and it cannot be said that principles of natural justice would strike at disciplinary action. The punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect, in the facts and circumstances, cannot be said to be high or harsh. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) ____________________ (K.G. SHANKAR, J) 21.09.2011 KH