THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 17233 of 2008 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking Writ of Certiorari declaring that the order passed by the second respondent in proceedings PR.No.443-A/2004, dated 13.02.2006 compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service as confirmed by the first respondent in proceedings No.D(D)A.No.19/2006/C4(Con.), dated 19.09.2006 as illegal and arbitrary. The case of the petitioner is that he joined the service as Amin on 14.10.1981 in the Court of the District Judge, Visakhaptnam. Thereafter he was promoted as Lower Division Clerk on 1.10.1983. He was placed under suspension vide proceedings dated 12.04.2005 initiating disciplinary action by framing 11 charges. The charges levelled against the petitioner read as under: 1. He failed to consign the disposed records to the central record room relating to the II and III periods of the year 2003, I and II periods of the year 2004 in spite of the specific office orders dated 7.05.2004, 28.05.2004 and 12.07.2004 by the Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka and finally, he sent the records for the II period of 2003 on 26.08.2004 and the remaining consignment work was not done by him at all. 2. From the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, he was transferred to the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Madugula and relieved on 31.12.2004, but the failed to complete the arrear work, nor did he handover the keys of the record room, and thereby lot of inconvenience is caused to the Court proceedings like, attending appeal calls, and return of documents, as well as, consignment of records. 3. In spite of the direction from the District Judge on 16.02.2005, the charged employee failed to handover the charge, keys and records to his successor. 4. The charged employee sent telegrams and complaints to the Hon’ble High Court against the presiding officer without routing them through proper channel and further instigated the other staff members working in the Court to go on pen down strike, to go on mass causal leave to be indifferent towards Presiding Officers. 5. Sri P.M.M.Siddarth, II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam inspected the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka on 5.02.2005, and observed in the inspection report that, ‘the record room has been locked at the time of inspection. It was reported the then record keeper not handed over the keys. The record room was opened with duplicate key. The condition of the record room is pell-mell. The presiding officer is directed to take action against the concerned.’ 6. The District Judge directed the charged employee on 25.01.2005 to attend the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka where he was originally working from 31.01.2005 applying for leave of his choice and complete the arrear work within one week, falling which stern disciplinary action will be taken against him and his salary shall not be disbursed till compliance report is received from the Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, he did not care to comply the said direction. 7. While working at Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Madugula, the charged employee failed to take action for encashment of 37 Demand Drafts and attended 15 Demand Drafts belatedly in relation to salary attachments for bringing them into ledgers and adjusting them in Civil Court Deposit in spite of specific direction from the Junior Civil Judge, Madugula. 8. The Junior Civil Judge, Madugula reported that the charged employee did not attend the office in time and coming late between 11.30 a.m., and 12.00 noon, and even at 01.00 p.m., on 19.03.2005. 9. One Sri G. Vijay Kumar, formerly Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, now working as II Additional District Judge (FTC), Srikakulam, mentioned in the annual confidential report of the charged employee, that the officer took charge as Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka on 24.09.1998. The charged employee did many number of omissions and commissions. He has done high degree of carelessness, negligence, irresponsibility and the like, and he has never seen in his entire service of 14 years. He is unfit to be kept adamant temperament. Smt. D. Leelavathi, formerly Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, now working as V Additional District Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, mentioned in the confidential report of the charged employee stating that, ‘No. of warnings were given. He is very adamant and gives higher provocative replies. He is very lazy man and work avoiding nature. He has shown high degree of carelessness, negligence, recklessness, unreality and untrustworthiness and giddy. He is the in the habit of sending unscrupulous petitions against officer through the party who loses his case. He is most dangerous clerk and unfair.’ 10. One Sri B. Srinivasa Rao was ordered to take charge of the record room hitherto under the control of the charged employee, and he was threatened by the charged employee and when Sri B. Srinivasa Rao opened the record room, some original documents received from the copyists department, were found stacked in two gunny bags without any list, and the charged employee recklessly and carelessly left the office on 07.03.2005 11. The charged employee developed habit of sending petitions after petitions and even telegrams in the name of his daughter on 16.02.2005 to the Hon’ble High Court etc., and addressing letter to the District Judge, Visakhapatnam on 04.05.2005 stating that if his salary is not paid quite unnecessarily, and being harassed, and he sent petitions to the Hon’ble High Court, as well as to the Supreme Court and that he should be paid salary and transferred to Visakhapatnam, and it amounted to the threatening the District Judge. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation to the charge memo denying the allegations levelled against him. The second respondent appointed one Sri A. Vara Prasad Rao, Senior Civil Judge, Chodavaram as Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 26.11.2005 holding that the petitioner is guilty of the charges. While accepting the said report, the second respondent furnished a copy thereof to the petitioner calling for his written explanation. On furnishing a copy of the report, the petitioner submitted his explanation. Ultimately, the second respondent passed final orders on 15.02.2006 imposing punishment of compulsory retirement from service with immediate effect and ordered that the period of suspension undergone by the petitioner would not be computed for the purpose of pension and that payments for this period would be limited to the subsistence allowance already paid to him. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent. The first respondent by the order impugned dismissed the appeal holding that the charges proved against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature and reveal gross dereliction of duties, negligence and insubordination on his part. Hence, there is no justification in continuing such employees in service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition contending that though he had submitted a detailed representation to the second respondent seeking permission to engage legal practitioner to defend his departmental enquiry, since he is not conversant with the procedural aspects of enquiry, the second respondent rejected his request without disclosing any reasons. We have heard Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. M. Bhaskara Lakshmi, learned Standing Counsel for A.P. High Court Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner is denied the opportunity of providing assistance of legal practitioner, as a result of which he could not properly and effectively represent his case, which amounts to denial of opportunity. He also contended that the punishment imposed against the petitioner is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. To rebut the said contention, Smt. M. Bhaskara Lakshmi, learned Standing Counsel for A.P. High Court, relied on Rule 20(5) (c) of the A.P. (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short ‘the Rules’) and contended that the presenting officer is only a superintendent and not a legal practitioner. Unless the presenting officer is a legal practitioner, the question of providing assistance of a lawyer to the petitioner does not arise. Rule 20 (5)(c) reads as under. On the day so fixed, the disciplinary authority shall serve copies of the orders appointing the inquiring authority and the presenting officer on the Government servant and inform him that he may take the assistance of any other government servant or a legal practitioner for the purpose unless the presenting officer appointed by the disciplinary authority is one such, or, the disciplinary authority, having regard to the circumstances of the case, so permits. A reading of the above Rule makes it clear that the petitioner may take the assistance of any other government servant or a legal practitioner for the purpose unless the presenting officer appointed by the disciplinary authority is one such. But however, in this case the presenting officer is a superintendent, but not a legal practitioner. Since the charges are proved, the disciplinary authority taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, rightly imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service, which is within the domain of the disciplinary authority. The first respondent has recorded reasons as to why such request has been rejected, and dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the disciplinary authority. In the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Since the respondents have followed the procedure the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not provided legal assistance of a lawyer, cannot be accepted as the presenting officer is only a superintendent, but not a legal practitioner. In the circumstances, there is no illegality committed by the respondents warranting interference of this Court. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ (GHULAM MOHAMMED, J.) ___________________ (G.CHANDRAIAH, J.) 28th June, 2010 Js.