IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO : 15532 of 2009 Between: A.Venkatamuni ..... PETITIONER AND The District Judge, Chittoor District, Chittoor & Another. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No. 15532 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) By means of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings in L.Dis No.266-A/1998, Denq 8- A/95, dated 23.6.1998 and consequential proceedings, dated 12.6.2009 issued by the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently to set aside the same and direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.7853 of 2003, dated 31.12.2007. The petitioner and one J.Krishnappa while working as Amins at Sub-Court, Madanapalli, certain complaints were received against them, and that the District Judge, Chittoor-1st respondent herein ordered for discreet enquiry on those allegations on 30.8.1995 and entrusted the matter to the then Subordinate Judge, Madanapalli, who submitted his detailed report on 7.10.1995 stating that the petitioner and said Krishnappa indulged in malpractice of appropriating amounts by selling covers with stamps, without tendering them to the dispatch Amin and making wrongful gain and thereby caused hardship to the parties. Further it was reported that they were running private chits with the staff members as subscribers and organizing private chits without observing the necessary formalities contemplated under Section 7 of the A.P. Chit Funds Act. On the said report, the 1st respondent ordered a detailed regular departmental enquiry against the petitioner as well as said Krishnappa on 3.11.1995. The enquiry officer framed three charges against both the delinquent officers. To the extent relevant, charge Nos.1 and 3 against the petitioner read as under: “Charge No.1: That you Sri A.Venkatamuni, presently working as Junior Assistant, Sub-Court, Srikalahasti, while working as Amin in Sub-Court, Madanapalle, worked as Deputy Nazir’s Assistant during the month of July and August, 1992; May, 1993; March to August, November and December, 1994; July and August, 1995 and during the period you indulged in mal-practice of stealing of the stamped covers after preparation of summons and notices by the process-writers of A.D.J. Court, Sub-Court, District Munsiff Court, Madanapalle and you retained without handing over them the dispatch assistant of Nazarath willfully to make wrongful gain by selling them to the intending purchasers and that you indulged in manipulating records by mentioning wrong dispatch numbers in the ‘B’ registers concerned relating to the stamps covers retained by you and this mis-conducted contravening the provisions of Rule 3 of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Charge No.3: That you both the delinquents 1 and 2 while as Amins in the Deputy Nazarath, Sub-Court, Madanapalle were running private chits with the office staff as subscribers is held auctions in the Court campus on 1.9.1995 and 29.9.1995 created lot of nuisance and by operation of private chits on the provisions of A.P. Chit Funds Act (Sec.7) and Sec.3 of Chit (Banning) Act of 1971, amounting for mis-conduct violating of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.” During the course of enquiry, the enquiry officer examined as many as 13 witnesses and marked 17 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.17 on behalf of department. But no oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the petitioner and Krishnappa. After conducting the enquiry, the enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of charge No.1 but the charge No.3 was held not proved. Likewise, the enquiry officer held that charge No.2 was held proved against Krishnappa. The disciplinary authority accepted the findings of the enquiry officer and after considering the explanation of the petitioner, imposed a punishment of stoppage of 4 annual increments with cumulative effect on the petitioner as well as Krishnappa through the impugned proceedings, dated 23.6.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review petition on 27.7.1998 before the 1st respondent and the same was also dismissed vide proceedings in Dis No.6208/1998, dated 13.8.1998. Aggrieved by the imposition of punishment, the petitioner as well as said Krishnappa preferred independent appeals on the Administrative side of this Court on 13.11.1997 which were considered and rejected by this Court by an order, dated 27.3.1999. Thereafter, said Krishnappa moved another petition on 23.6.1999, soliciting re- consideration of the entire matter and that petition was also rejected by this Court on 20.10.1999. Then, the said Krishnappa filed W.P.No.7853 of 2002. A Division Bench of this Court by order, dated 31.12.2007 allowed the writ petition. Though we are not concerned with Krishnappa in the present writ petition, since the petitioner is claiming parity and equality with that of Krishnappa in view of the orders passed in W.P.No.7853 of 2002, we would like to extract the relevant paragraph Nos. 15 and 16 of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.7853 of 2002, which read thus: 15. But nonetheless the main thrust of the charge appears to be that the petitioner had indulged in “malpractice of stealing of the stamped covers” from the Court records. As is already noticed, an inference has been drawn that the petitioner is equally guilty of causing disappearance of the postal covers from the Court records and thus, indirectly, the charge is sought to be held established against the petitioner. In matters of this nature, the possibility or availability of direct evidence can be very remote if not liable to be ruled out. When once the petitioner had failed to satisfactorily explain the absence of postal covers from the Court records under his custody, it is reasonable inference that may be drawn that he has indulged in the malpractice of removing them from the Court Records. Though the charge as framed against the petitioner used a far more stringent expression “malpractice of stealing”, but nonetheless the main theme with which the petitioner had been proceeded and confronted against is that he has caused the disappearance of certain material forming part of the Court records. The petitioner had not suffered, in this process, any prejudice by the usage of a stronger expression characterizing his misconduct. 16. But nonetheless one fact which remains to be taken note of is that the allegations have been principally made against the other Amin Sri A.Venkatamuni and in the process of investigating those allegations, the role of the present petitioner herein has also come out. It is very clear that the postal covers have not been properly accounted for in few cases in so far as the present petitioner is concerned, whereas there were large scale irregularities indulged in by Amin Sri A.Venkatamuni. In those set up circumstances, a lenient view should have been taken while imposing the punishment in so far as the present petitioner is concerned. The petitioner as well as Sri A.Venkatamuni could not have been treated alike without any regard for the quantum of irregularities indulged in by them.” In that view of the matter, this Court while upholding the finding of the misconduct against said Krishnappa, modified the punishment as stoppage of four increments without cumulative effect, in substitution of the punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect. On coming to know of allowing the writ petition filed by Krishnappa, petitioner made a representation to the 1st respondent on 4.6.2009 to consider reduction of punishment of withholding of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect in the light of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.7853 of 2002. The 1st respondent returned the said representation stating that the punishment imposed on Krishnappa should not be on par with the petitioner herein whose case is entirely different from said Krishnappa in terms of gravity, and further clarified that the term “in contrast to the case of another Amin Sri A.Venkatamuni” means not on par with Amin Sri A. Venkatamuni. On return of the said representation, the present writ petition is filed questioning the punishment imposed in the year 1999 i.e. after lapse of ten years inter alia contending that his case and the case of Mr.Krishnappa are on the same footing but unfortunately as he could not ventilate his grievance, this Court held that the case of Mr.Krishnappa is lesser in gravity of offence than that of the case of petitioner. It is contended that this Court in all aspects treated both the cases alike and hence, two different punishments for the same offence on different persons are not permissible in the eye of law and the same is in violation of Article 16 of the Constitution of India apart from violative of principles of natural justice. Therefore, he prayed to treat him alike of co-employee Krishnappa in the matter of imposition of punishment. The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that after framing the charges and on submission of the report by the enquiry officer, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice calling for explanation and after considering the explanation he was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of four annual increments with cumulative effect by the impugned proceedings along with the other charged officer Mr.J.Krishnappa. It is specifically stated that said Krishnappa committed mischief on only eight instances in 8 process papers, and whereas, the petitioner herein committed mischief on 48 instances covering 74 papers to be sent by registered post. The number of parties suffered loss and hardship on account of the mischief committed by the petitioner is very large when compared to the number of parties suffered on account of the mischief of Krishnappa. It is pointed out that the charge No.1 proved against the petitioner includes manipulation and making false entries in the registers, whereas, there is no such charge against the other Amin, J.Krishnappa. Since the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the orders, dated 27.3.1999 dismissing the departmental appeal, he has to explain the abnormal delay in filing the writ petition after lapse of ten years and that for creating the cause of action, he filed the representation, dated 3.6.2009 before this respondent. Therefore, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that when the petitioner as well as Krishnappa were awarded punishment of stoppage of four annual increments with cumulative effect by the same proceedings and when the punishment imposed on Krishnappa was modified to the one of stoppage of increments without cumulative effect, the petitioner is entitled to the same treatment as both of them were awarded for the same offence of indulging in mal-practice of stealing of stamp covers after preparation of summons and notices by the process- writers and selling them to the intending purchasers, and that as the charge No.3 framed against the petitioner as well as said Krishnappa was held not proved, the stoppage of increments with cumulative effect will have a great impact on the petitioner even during the post-retirement benefits also and therefore, the punishment imposed on the petitioner is liable to be modified in the same terms as was done in the case of Krishnappa. The charge No.1 as extracted above clearly discloses that the petitioner while working as Amin at Subordinate Court, Madanapalli discharged the duties as Deputy Nazir’s Assistant during the month of July and August, 1992; May, 1993; March to August, November and December, 1994; July and August, 1995. During the said period he indulged in mal-practice of stealing of stamp covers after preparation of summons and notices by the process-writers of Additional District Judge’s Court, Subordinate Court, District Munsif Court, Madanapalli and that he retained them without handing over to the dispatch assistant of Nazarath willfully to make wrongful gain by selling them to the intending purchasers and thus he indulged in manipulating records by mentioning wrong dispatch numbers in the ‘B’ registers concerned relating to the stamps covers retained by him. Whereas, the charge No.2 that relates to the other Amin-Krishnappa reads thus: “that you Sri J.Krishnappa, Amin, Sub Court, Madanapalli while working as Deputy Nazir’s Assistant during the months of March and September, 1991, February, May, June, 1994, and during that period you indulged in malpractice of stealing of the stamped covers after preparation of summons and notices by the Process-writers of ADJ Court, Sub Court, District Munsif Court, Madanapalli and you retained without handing over them to the Dispatch assistant of Nazarath willfully to make wrongful gain by selling them to the intending purchasers and thus committed misconduct contravening the provision of Rule 3 of A.P.Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.” From the above two charges made against the petitioner and said Krishnappa, there is no allegation against said Krishnappa about his indulging in manipulating of records by mentioning wrong dispatch numbers in the ‘B’ registers concerned relating to the stamps covers retained by him. In W.P.No.7853 of 2002 also, this Court noticed the difference/gravity between the charge Nos.1 and 2 while modifying the punishment imposed on Krishnappa. It was observed therein that ‘a lenient view should have been taken while imposing the punishment in so far as Krishnappa is concerned, and that said Krishnappa as well as A.Venkatamuni-petitioner herein could not have been treated alike without any regard for the quantum of irregularities indulged in by them’. Since there is a qualitative difference in charge Nos.1 and 2 framed against the petitioner and Krishnappa, the petitioner cannot complain violation of Article 16 or equality of punishment under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner having accepted the punishment imposed on him and having kept quiet for more than 10 years, now cannot challenge the same merely because Krishnappa got some benefit in the writ petition filed by him. Taking clue from the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.7853 of 2002, the petitioner cannot take a chance complaining inequality in imposition of punishment. Since we found that there is a qualitative difference in both the charges and manipulation of Court records by mentioning wrong dispatch numbers in the ‘B’ registers concerned relating to stamp covers retained by him, is a serious misconduct, we are of the firm opinion that the punishment imposed on the petitioner for manipulation of records is not disproportionate to the gravity of the charge, and therefore, we do not see any merit in any of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Under those circumstances, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) _________________ (NOUSHAD ALI, J.) DECEMBER 22, 2009 TSR