HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 20726 of 2005 ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy) The petitioner, who was a member in A.P.Judicial Service, has filed this writ petition, challenging the validity of the orders of the 1st respondent-Government issued in G.O.Ms.No.52 Law (LA & J Courts C1) Department, dated 24.04.2002, by which, she was removed from service as a measure of penalty, pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her, on the recommendation of the 2nd respondent-High Court. 2. The petitioner, a Science graduate from Andhra University, enrolled as an Advocate on 25th of June 1991. She joined the A.P.Judicial Service on 16.05.1998 as a Junior Civil Judge. She was posted initially in Srikakulam, and after her training in Judicial Academy, she was posted as III Metropolitan Judge, Visakhapatnam. Later, she was transferred as II Additional Junior Civil Judge at Amalapuram in East Godavari District, and thereafter, in the month of May 2000, she was posted as Junior Civil Judge in Kothapeta. 3. When the petitioner was working as Junior Civil Judge at Kothapeta, a telegraphic complaint, dated 2nd January 2002, was sent by the staff of the said Court, alleging that the petitioner was subjecting them to unbearable and continuous harassment, torture and humiliation. In view of the said complaint, the 2nd respondent-High Court, on administrative side, called for a report from the District Judge, East Godavari. The III Additional District Judge (in Full Additional Charge as District Judge), East Godavari at Rajahmundry, after inquiring into the said complaint, sent a detailed report, dated 5th January 2002. Having considered the report sent by the learned District Judge and various other complaints received against the petitioner, she was transferred to Puthur in Chittoor District and she was directed to hand over the charge of her post to Additional Junior Civil Judge, Razole. Thereafter, the petitioner, without handing over the charge as directed by the High Court, made several representations seeking extension of time, for handing over the charge, on various reasons. Representations were also sent by her to the Hon’ble Judges of this Court, by-passing the circular instructions issued by the High Court on administrative side, in ROC.No.300/ 1990-B.Spl, dated 18th January 2002. As the petitioner was not handing over the charge, the District Judge had to personally go to Kothapeta to make her hand over the charge. Thereafter, a further report was sent by the District Judge, and this Court, upon considering the complaints received against the petitioner and the reports sent by the District Judge, found the prima facie case of misconduct on the part of the petitioner, and therefore, initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by placing her under suspension, vide Proceedings, dated 31st January 2002. 4. In the disciplinary proceedings, ten charges were framed against the petitioner. The petitioner has filed her defence statement on the articles of charges levelled against her, and upon considering the defence putforth by the petitioner/delinquent officer, the High Court has proceeded with the inquiry under Rule 20 of the A.P. Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. In the departmental inquiry, Sri Syed Abdullah, the then Principal District Judge, East Godavari, was appointed as an inquiry officer. Most of the charges framed against the petitioner relate to serious dereliction of duty in discharging her Judicial functions, amounting to grave misconduct and unbecoming of a Judicial Officer, within the meaning of Rule 3 of the A.P.Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964. 5. We briefly refer to the nature of charges framed against the petitioner in the departmental inquiry. In charge No.1, misconduct is alleged against the petitioner stating that while working as Junior Civil Judge, Kothapeta, she has made only docket orders in the cases numbering about 27 without preparing the judgments/orders, and pronounced the same, contrary to Rules and procedure. Under Charge No.2, it was alleged that in about 142 number of cases, the petitioner has retained the judgments for a long time and returned them with an abnormal delay, without making any corrections. Under charge No.3, it was alleged that the petitioner has indulged in negligence and dereliction of duties in discharge of judicial functions by not entering the plea of the accused and the result of STC cases in STC Register. Under Charge No.4, it was alleged that in 86 cases, she has retained the case files with her for a long time and returned the judgments and orders without correcting them, with abnormal delay, after the District Judge visited her Court and recorded the statements of staff members. Vide Charge No.5, it was alleged that the petitioner did not sign on the depositions recorded by her in about 22 cases, constituting negligence and dereliction of duties. Under Charge No.6, it is alleged that in about 97 number of cases, she did not return the judgments, decrees, orders, depositions, calendars, etc., and retained them with her, due to which, copy applications filed for issuance of certified copies thereof, were pending with the Bench Clerks and could not be complied with, and the same amounts to negligence and dereliction of duty in discharge of Judicial functions by the petitioner. Under Charge No.7, it was alleged that the petitioner, while working as Junior Civil Judge, Kothapeta, used to tease and harass staff members of the said Court by directing them to attend the office by 6.30 a.m. and work up to 10.30 p.m., and that by giving various instances against the staff members, she used to abuse and scold them on one pretext or the other for petty reasons, and not sanctioning their service benefits, by taking undue advantage of her official position, amounting to gross misconduct and unbecoming of a Judicial Officer. Vide Charge No.8, it was alleged that when the petitioner was transferred from the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Kothapeta to the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puthur, instead of joining at Puthur, she addressed a representation on 07.01.2002 to the Registrar (Vigilance), seeking extension of time to dictate and pronounce judgments and also marked the copies of said representation to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice and the Hon’ble Judges of this Court, and thus, violated the instructions issued by the High Court vide Circular Instructions issued in ROC.No.300/90, B.Spl, dated 18th January 1990. Vide Charge No.9, it was alleged that after the petitioner was transferred as Junior Civil Judge from Kothapeta to Puthur in Chittoor District, instead of handing over the charge as directed in the transfer order, she passed orders placing 11 staff members of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kothapeta under suspension, inspite of specific and repeated instructions of the District Judge not to pass any orders, which amounts to abuse of power and misconduct. Under Charge No.10, it was alleged that inspite of her transfer from the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Kothapeta to the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur, though she has received the said orders on 6th January 2002, she went on postponing handing over of the charge on 7th January 2002, on the pretext that she was contacting the High Court and getting some time, and signed the CTC forms after 5 p.m. on 07.01.2002, only on the intervention of the District Judge, I and II Additional District Judges and that she gave much trouble to the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Razole in handing over the personal box, confidential files and in signing the list of valuable properties. 6. In the inquiry conducted by the inquiry officer-cum- Principal District Judge, East Godavari, on behalf of the presenting officer, PWs.1 to 13 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-169 were marked. On behalf of defence, the petitioner/charged officer was examined as DW-1, an Advocate of Bar Association, Kothapeta was examined as DW-2, and a Retired Administrative Officer of District Court, East Godavari, was examined as DW-3, and Exs.D-1 to D-8 were marked. The inquiry officer, who conducted the inquiry, by appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, has submitted his report, dated 20th October 2003, passed in Departmental Inquiry No.1 of 2002, by recording his findings that all the charges framed against the petitioner were proved. The High Court, having considered the said report and the explanation/comments offered by the petitioner on 15th of December 2003, recommended the punishment of penalty of removal from service to be imposed on the petitioner, and based on the same, the 1st respondent/Government has issued the impugned orders in G.O.Ms.No.52 Law (LA & J Courts C1) Department, dated 24th April 2004, removing the petitioner from service. The said orders are challenged in this writ petition on various grounds. 7. Heard Sri G.Vidyasagar, leaned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-High Court. 8. It is argued by Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for petitioner that in this case, the complaint filed against the petitioner is false and though there was no evidence on record in support of the charges to prove the guilt of the petitioner, the inquiry officer has recorded erroneous findings, and there is no basis for recording such findings. It is submitted that it is a case of no evidence on the charges framed against the petitioner. It is further submitted that some of the staff members, who were instructed to discharge the duties by the petitioner in proper manner, did not like the instructions of the officer, and therefore, made a false representation against her, and based on such representation, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. It is submitted that there was no time limit for correcting the judgments, and in view of pressure of work, there was some delay, and the said delay cannot be construed as negligence and dereliction of duty of the petitioner as an officer. So far as entries in the STC register are concerned, it is submitted that the petitioner is not responsible for the same and the entries are to be made only by the ministerial staff, but not by the petitioner. With reference to her transfer proceedings also, it is submitted that as much as there were some reserved matters in which arguments were completed, extension of time was sought by the petitioner to complete the said work as a Junior Civil Judge, Kothapeta, and same was also mistaken and a charge was framed on that aspect also. Lastly, it is submitted that there was no resistance on the part of the petitioner in handing over the charge. It is submitted that inspite of valid defence taken in the disciplinary proceedings, the inquiry officer has recorded findings adverse to the petitioner, without giving proper opportunity to her, and also by depriving the services of an officer on her behalf, to defend the proceedings. 9. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-High Court that in this case, it is clear from the charge memo, which is placed on record, that there is gross negligence and dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner as a Judicial officer, and all the charges levelled against her are serious in nature. It is submitted that in large number of cases, though the petitioner has delivered judgments based on the docket proceedings, but actually, judgments were not prepared and they were not made available for the aggrieved parties to get the certified copies, so as to avail the legal remedies available under law. It is submitted that from the oral and documentary evidence on record, the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved, and further pleaded that as much as the procedural aspects as contemplated under Rule 20 of the A.P. Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 were followed, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order imposing penalty of removal on the petitioner. In support of his argument, the learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde[1]. Based on the judgment referred above, it is submitted that in the departmental inquiry proceedings, the scope of judicial review and interference is very limited. It is submitted that this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence, sitting as an appellate authority over the inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority, to come to a different conclusion than the findings recorded by the said authorities. 9. In view of the above said submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the scope of judicial review, we briefly refer to the charges levelled against the petitioner/delinquent officer, the evidence on record in support of the said charges, and also the findings recorded by the inquiry officer on such charges. 10. On first charge, it was alleged that the petitioner has made only docket orders in 27 cases, particulars of which are given in the enclosures, by not preparing the judgments, and pronounced the same, kept the files with her and returned the same without judgments/orders, with an abnormal delay, and the same will amount to misconduct. With reference to the said charge, precisely, the defence of the petitioner is that right from May 2000, till she handed over the charge on 7th January 2002, she used to dictate judgments and orders to the Steno-typist and same are evident from the records available in the Court. She denied the allegation that without dictating judgments, she disposed of the cases on the basis of docket orders. The charged officer has relied on the dictation books of the Stenographer, which were marked as Exs.P-14 to P-26 and the entries made in A-Diary. In Ex.P-7, the preliminary report sent by PW-1 to the High Court, it was clearly stated that the officer, who succeeded to the petitioner, has verified the records with the help of his staff members and found that draft judgments are not available in the case records. Vide Ex.P-13, a list was prepared by the staff, relating to the cases in which draft judgments are not sent to Section at all. Further, PW-1 had deposed that on 21.04.2001 and on 31.12.2001, the petitioner had delivered judgments in a number of cases. The entries made in A-Diary written on 21.04.2001, shows that judgments in several criminal cases and 92 tenancy cases were pronounced on that day. The inquiry officer has held that it is not possible to pronounce such number of judgments on the same day itself, and the petitioner has indulged in delivering such number of judgments only to show the number of disposals, without discussing the facts and evidence in detail. PW-2, the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Razole, who had relieved the charged officer, and who was in Full Additional Charge of the said Court for some time, has also sent a letter to the District Court, informing that when he opened the desk in the chambers of the petitioner, he could find some 80 draft judgments kept in a bundle. With reference to the said aspect, the learned inquiry officer has recorded a finding that the said judgments were kept by the petitioner/officer in her desk subsequent to 03.01.2002, on which date, PW-1 had visited Kothapeta to inquire the staff. In view of the evidence of PWs.1 and 7, the learned inquiry officer has recorded a finding that the petitioner has adopted a slipshod method in disposal of cases with docket orders on the date of judgment, and the judgments were not prepared on the date of pronouncement, but the same were prepared leisurely, as such, it is held that the petitioner had committed grave misconduct and there was dereliction of duty by her in discharge of judicial functions. 11. Vide charge No.2, the allegation levelled against the petitioner is that in about 142 cases, the petitioner has retained the judgments for a long time and returned them without making any corrections, with abnormal delay, and that too, after the District Judge visited her Court and recorded the statements of staff members, due to which, typing of fair copies of judgments could not be done, with the result, copies of judgments could not be furnished to the accused therein, as such, there is negligence and serious dereliction of duty in discharge of judicial functions and it amounts to misconduct and unbecoming of a Judicial officer within the meaning of Rule 3 of A.P.Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964. 12. The inquiry officer, having verified the records with reference to several criminal cases, has noticed that though judgments were signed, there are blanks in such judgments, and no corrections were made. He has given such instances in cases covered by C.C.Nos.279 of 2001, 380 of 2001, 282 of 2001, 236 of 2001, 221 of 2001, 224 of 2001, 204 of 2001, 200 of 2001, 199 of 2001, 187 of 2001, 180 of 2001, 171 of 2001, 150 of 2001, 468 of 2001 and 44 of 2001. Further, he has also verified the records with reference to case records in C.C.Nos.147 of 2001, 293 of 2001, 53 of 2001, 205 of 2001, 504 of 2000, 283 of 2001 and 505 of 2000, and found that the blanks in those judgments were not filled. Further, in C.C.No.225 of 2000, he did not find any judgment and calendar. Though the petitioner has defended such a charge, stating that she was continuously on Bench right from 10.30 a.m. up to beyond 5 p.m., but the same is no excuse at all. The inquiry officer, on appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, found that the said charge is also proved against the petitioner, and the same will amount to dereliction of duty in discharge of judicial functions. 13. Vide charge No.3, it was alleged that in about 42 STC cases, the petitioner did not enter the plea of the accused, examination if any of the accused, and the result of the case in the STC register, and the same will amount to negligence and serious dereliction of duty in discharge of judicial functions. With reference to said charge, during the cross-examination of the charged officer, the presenting officer had confronted the STC register, which is marked as Ex.P-169, and questioned her whether there are any entries written by her, relating to the cases covered by Charge No.3, and her answer was that she cannot say whether she had written any orders in the relevant cases. The answer was in an evasive manner. When she was further questioned as to why she has not noted down the plea of the accused and the result of cases in STC register in Ex.P-169, she could not explain, except throwing the blame on the staff that they have not placed the register before her. In this regard, it is relevant to mention the provision under Section 463 of Cr.P.C., as per which, in every case tried summarily, it is obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to enter in the prescribed form, several details, including the serial number of the case, date of commission of offence, date of report or complaint, name of the complainant, name and parentage and residence of the accused, the offence complained of, the plea of the accused and his explanation if any, the finding, the sentence or other final order, and the date on which the proceeding is terminated. Inspite of such an obligation, there was no valid reason offered by the petitioner for not making such entries in 42 cases disposed of by her. 14. Vide Charge Nos.4 and 6, it was alleged that the petitioner has retained the records, judgments/orders for a long time without correcting them, and there was abnormal delay in sending the fair copies in the said judgments, as such, such judgments were not made ready and furnished to the parties and the same will amount to negligence and dereliction of duty. Under Ex.P-7 report, the District Judge, who was examined as PW-1, complained that the charged officer has sent records in 269 cases on 04.01.2002, in 71 cases on 05.01.2002 and in 31 cases on 07.01.2002. PW-2, the successor of the charged officer, also passed-on the information about sending of records subsequently. The Junior Assistant of the J.F.C.M. Court, Kothapeta, was examined as PW-7 and he has clearly stated that one Sri Y.Laxmanudu, Process Server, had brought the said records and the list of those cases numbering about 369, was prepared. Having regard to the said evidence on record with reference to these charges, it was held that there was abnormal delay on the part of the petitioner in sending the corrected copies of judgments, which ultimately resulted in delay in furnishing the copies to the affected parties to work out their legal remedies. In view of the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 7, the inquiry officer has held that the said charges are also proved against the petitioner. 15. Vide Charge No.5, it was alleged that though the petitioner/charged officer has recorded evidence in the cases numbering about 22, she did not sign the depositions and retained the same with her for a long time and returned them after the District Judge visited her Court and recorded the statements of the staff members, and as such, the same will amount to negligence and dereliction of duty in discharge of judicial functions. With reference to said charge, having considered the evidence on record, the inquiry officer has held that she was unable to bestow her attention on all these aspects as she was in over anxiety for quantitative disposal by slip-shod judgments and orders. With reference to the defence taken by the petitioner/charged officer, it was recorded by the inquiry officer that records belies her version that staff have not placed the relevant record before her for her signatures. As such, it is held that the said charge is proved. 16. With reference to Charge No.7, the allegation was that the petitioner was used to tease and harass the staff members and several such instances were referred to in the charge. The charged officer herself has admitted that she issued an office order directing the staff to work from 6.30 a.m., but however, her defence was that the said instructions were issued to clear-off the pending work in view of the ensuing inspection by the District Judge. Vide Ex.P-115, she has also issued office order, dated 22.12.2001, directing the staff to attend the office at 7 a.m. Referring to such several instances from the evidence on record, the learned inquiry officer has held that the said charge is also proved. There is evidence on record to show that on a public holiday, when PW-6 wanted to go to hospital as his wife was to be operated, he was not permitted, and on the other hand, he was humiliated. Similarly, it was held that pension papers of one Sri P.Satyanarayana, Process Server, who retired on 31st of August 2001, were kept in her box till November 2001. The Head Clerk of the Court was examined as PW- 3 and he has deposed that after preparing the pension papers, he placed the same before the charged officer for her signatures so as to forward the same to the Accountant General’s office, Hyderabad, but inspite of that, the said papers were not signed and kept with her for a long period without any reason. Evidence on record also proved that there are instances where the genuine requests of staff members for casual leave, were rejected without there being any valid reasons. Referring to such kind of instances, the inquiry officer has recorded findings against the charged officer and the same is also in consonance with the oral and documentary evidence on record. 17. Vide charge No.8, it was alleged that though the petitioner, who was working as Junior Civil Judge at Kothapeta, was transferred and posted as Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puthur, instead of joining at Puthur as per the transfer order, she has addressed a representation to the Registrar (Vigilance), seeking extension of time. It is