THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.14386 OF 2007 O R D E R (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Chandraiah) Aggrieved by the order passed by the 1st respondent – Registrar (Management), High Court of A.P. in Order in D(D)A.NO.26/2006, C-4 (Con.) dated 15.9.2006 in conﬁrming the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative eﬀect, imposed on the petitioner by the 2nd respondent – Disciplinary Authority – cum – District Judge, Visakhapatnam in Order in Pr.No.43-A/2005 dated 22.2.2006, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The petitioner was appointed on 1.11.1980 as Copyist in the District Court, Visakhapatnam and in the month of April, 1983, he was promoted as Junior Assistant and subsequently he was promoted as Senior Assistant. In the month of April, 2000 he was transferred to the court of Senior Civil Judge and while so, in the month of September, 2001 he was posted to work on deputation basis in the court of Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka. While he was working in the said court at Gajuwaka, he was issued with a memo dated 30.12.2004 alleging that while he was working as Bench clerk, he did not obtain proper order in SOP.No.3/2002 dated 21.4.2004 from the Presiding Oﬃcer and also not placed before the then oﬃcer and made entries in the disposal register of the concerned branch. The petitioner submitted his explanation stating that he used to attend all categories of cases besides his normal duties, with the assistance of Smt. Ch.Kusuma Kumari and that SOP.No.3/2002 was decreed ex parte on 21.4.2004 and the same has been entered in civil register no.8 and that it is not his duty to obtain orders on the docket of ex parte matters, but the oﬃcer has to pass orders on ex parte matters, then he will prepare decrees. Therefore, he made entries in the disposal register for the purpose of statement and that he is not at fault and that it is the duty of the typist concerned to obtain signature on the docket itself. Without considering his explanation, the Junior civil Judge, Gajuwaka submitted report to the District Judge and the District Judge, who is the disciplinary authority by order dated 27.1.2005, framing articles of charge, ordered enquiry and appointed the Senior Civil Judge, Chodavaram as Enquiry Oﬃcer. During the course of enquiry, the Superintendent of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Gajuwaka was examined as P.W.1, the Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka Ch.Rajagopala Rao was examined as P.W.2 and the Telugu Typist, Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Gajuwaka was examined as P.W.3. The petitioner also ﬁled written statement to the proceedings dated 27.1.2005 on 1.3.2005 and also ﬁled written arguments. The Enquiry Oﬃcer submitted his report on 21.3.2005 holding the petitioner guilty of misconduct under Rule 3 of A. P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1994 (for short ‘the Rules’). Based on the said report, the Disciplinary Authority issued show cause notice and the petitioner submitted his explanation on 8.4.2005. Not being satisﬁed with the explanation of the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority passed the proceedings dated 22.2.2006 imposing the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative eﬀect when they next fall due and the punishment was directed to be incorporated in the service register. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeal to the 1st respondent Registrar (Administration), High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and the appeal was dismissed by proceedings dated 15.9.2006. Hence, the writ petition. 3. No counter affidavit has been filed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Enquiry Oﬃcer did not consider the evidence available on record before ﬁnding the petitioner guilty and the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority conﬁrmed the same, without appreciating the evidence on record. He reiterating the stand of the petitioner in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition, sought for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and conﬁrmed by the Appellate authority. 5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the A. P. High Court, supporting the impugned order, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Before appreciating the contention of the petitioner, it is necessary to extract the charge and the basis of the charge, framed against the petitioner, as under: Articles of charges: “That you Sri B.Srinivasa rao, formerly Senior Assistant, Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Narsipatnam, Presently Supdt. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Narsipatnam, while working as Bench Clerk, on deputation, in Junior Civil Judge’s Court Gajuwaka, was entrusted with the dealing and custody of suit records, S.O.P. records etc., relating to the Jr. Civil Judge’s Court, Gajuwaka and you have free access with the records etc., that you failed to place the record S.O.P.No.3/02 before the oﬃcer on 21.4.2004 and obtain necessary orders, on account of which the petitioner was subjected to undue delay and hardship in applying succession certiﬁcate and thereby caused loss to the parties concerned as well as much inconvenience to the President Oﬃcer of the court of Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, which act or acts if proved or established would amount to misconduct, gross neglect of duties and contravention of Rule 3 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (conduct) Rules, 1964. Basis of the charge: The Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka in his report dt. 20.1.2005 has stated that Sri B.Srinivasa Rao, the then Bench Clerk of his Court did not obtain the ex parte order in S.O.P.No.3/2002 on the ﬁle of his court on 21.4.2004 and even the individual did not place the said record before the then oﬃcer and made entries in the disposal register.” 7. From the material available on record, it could be seen that the a succession O.P.No.3 of 2002 was ﬁled on the ﬁle of Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka and it came up before the Bench on 21.4.2004 and a docket order was passed to the eﬀect that “Proof aﬃdavit ﬁled. Exhibits A-1 and A-2 marked. Suit claim is proved”. Based on this order, without verifying whether the said order is complete and whether the petition was disposed of or not, the petitioner made entry in the disposal register showing that the case was disposed of. Further he also failed to obtain the signature of the Presiding Oﬃcer. The explanation of the petitioner is that it is the duty of the Typist to obtain orders and signatures of the Presiding Oﬃcer in ex parte decrees. His further case in that the Typist of the court had failed to complete the docket order and kept the case record in the almyrah along with other disposed of records and believing his words that he would complete the docket order, he (petitioner) made entries in the disposal register. 8. During the course of enquiry, to prove the charge leveled against the petitioner, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-6 were marked. Ex.P-1 is the docket sheet in S.O.P.No.3/2002 and Ex.P-2 is the disposal register. Based on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 i.e., the Superintendent of the Court, the Junior Civil Judge and the concerned Typist, coupled with the documentary evidence, the Enquiry Oﬃcer found that the writings on Ex.P-1 were that of the petitioner and that the words ‘further hearing’ had been struck oﬀ and the words ‘disposal noted’ were written thereupon. The Enquiry oﬃcer also found that the handwriting on Exs.P-1 and B-2 were that of the petitioner and further the same has not been denied. Therefore, from this evidence, the Enquiry Oﬃcer found that the conduct of the petitioner in noting disposal in Ex.P-2 and subsequently making entry on Ex.P-1 docket, amply prove that without obtaining the signature of the Presiding Oﬃcer on the docket, the petitioner had proceeded on his own accord and that he made entries in the disposal register, as if the matter had been disposed of, when it was not so. The enquiry oﬃcer held that with the act of the petitioner, the delay of eight months has been caused and it also caused loss to the petitioner in the S.O.P. and, therefore, held that the petitioner committed misconduct and had acted in gross negligence of his duties in contravention of Rule 3 of the Rules. The Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, based on the material available on record, concurred with the ﬁnding of the Enquiry Oﬃcer and ﬁnding the explanation oﬀered by the petitioner, as not satisfactory, imposed the punished, noted above. When the Enquiry oﬃcer based on the evidence, recorded ﬁnding of fact that the petitioner committed gross negligence of his duties in contravention of Rule 3 of the Rules and the same has been conﬁrmed both by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority based on the material on record, this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit as a appellate authority over the ﬁndings of the Enquiry Oﬃcer and arrive at the diﬀerent ﬁnding. As noted above, the Enquiry Oﬃcer based on evidence, found the petitioner guilty of misconduct and recorded ﬁnding of fact to that eﬀect, which cannot be interfered with. 9. Initially the Disciplinary Authority based on the report of the Enquiry Oﬃcer, issued show cause notice dated 23.3.2005, why the petitioner shall not be dismissed from service. Though the misconduct is proved, the Disciplinary Authority, considering the facts and circumstances, imposed punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and the Appellate Authority while conﬁrming the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, also examined the misconduct of the petitioner and the punishment imposed and found that the same is commensurate to the charge which was proved. Hence, we do not ﬁnd any justiﬁable reason to interfere with the same. 10. For the foregoing reasons, we do not ﬁnd any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. Having regard to the facts and the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------------ V.V.S.RAO,J --------------------------------------------- G.CHANDRAIAH,J AVS DATE:23.07.2008