THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY W.P.No. 22253 of 2007 Dated: 13-02-2008 Between: P. Ramana Reddy …Petitioner And Disciplinary Authority-cum- Principal District & Sessions Judge, Nellore. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY W.P.No. 22253 of 2007 Oral Order: (Per: The Hon’ble Sri justice Goda Raghuram) Heard Sri L. Ravichender, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.V. Sanjay Kumar, learned standing counsel for the respondent. The order dated 26-09-2007 impugned is one that places the petitioner--employed in the District Court unit, Nellore as Personal Assistant in the Court of learned I- Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore under suspension pending inquiry, in exercise of powers under Rule 8 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991. By an order dated 10-08-2007, the petitioner was intimated that a disciplinary inquiry is initiated against him on a charge of serious misconduct unbecoming of a government servant viz., of having allowed his wife Smt. P. Sarada to participate in the auction of immovable property in E.P.No. 86 of 2006 in O.S.No. 357 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, without intimation or permission of the appointing authority thereby undermining public confidence in judicial administration. In response thereto, the petitioner forwarded a representation dated 21-09-2007 to the Principal District Judge, Nellore with copies marked to the Chief Justice of this High Court; the learned Portfolio Judge for Nellore district and the Registrar (Vigilance), A.P. High Court with another copy marked to the Inquiring Authority with a prayer to the Inquiring Authority not to commence inquiry till his application is disposed of. In this representation dealing with the charge leveled against him in the inquiry initiated, the petitioner represented that fraud was played on the Court by some of the employees and such fraud and misrepresentation appears to have prejudiced the Principal District Judge, Nellore against the petitioner, which resulted in pseudonymous letters and that the District Judge for the reasons best known and post haste transferred the petitioner to Kota and has also framed charges ignoring his written statement pleading mercy. The representation further states as under: “…I suspect some extraneous considerations weighed with Hon’ble the Principal District Judge, Nellore and I was made a scapegoat in order to circumvent the above irregularities. The receipt of pseudonymous letter on 10-08-2007, framing Articles of charge, serving the same day in a posthaste manner, without providing me an opportunity of being heard and launching of enquiry without considering my written statement, is a proof positive that it was launched at the dictates of real culprits, with a view to shunt me out from the Department under the guise of Departmental enquiry. If the E.P. 136/2006 in O.S. 49/2003 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore and E.P. 32/2003 in O.S. 435/2002 on the file of III-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore are deeply perused truth will come out.” On receipt of the above representation from the petitioner, the impugned order was passed. In substance, the respondent exercised the discretionary power of placing the petitioner under suspension pending inquiry on the ground that the contents of the representation dated 21-09-2007 were unwarranted and constitute a conduct unbecoming of a government servant and indiscipline and were addressed with a view to overawe the conduct of disciplinary proceedings. On the basis of the above representation, another charge was framed against the petitioner regarding the allegations made against the disciplinary authority apart from a third charge regarding the conduct of the petitioner permitting his family members to participate in the Court auction. The initiation of the disciplinary proceedings on these two charges additionally framed is brought out in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent. Sri L. Ravi Chender, the learned counsel for the petitioner would state that though the representation made by the petitioner was intemperate and perhaps unwarranted, the conduct of the respondent in responding to such an irregularity by placing the petitioner under suspension was a disproportionate response and should therefore be set at naught. The above contention on behalf of the petitioner does not commend acceptance by this Court. Clearly, the petitioner made a serious allegation against the disciplinary authority by his representation dated 21-09- 2007 insinuating that extraneous considerations weighed with the learned District Judge and that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated at the instance of the real perpetrators of certain irregularities and with a view to cover up the offence and to subvert disciplining of the real perpetrators. In the entirety of the representation dated 21-09-2007, the petitioner does not state anything on the basis of which such serious allegation is made against the disciplinary authority. It is not the law that an employee is disentitled to level serious allegations even against the disciplinary authority. The question is was there any credible material on the basis of which such an allegation is made? The vague and speculative allegation as is asserted against the learned District Judge in the petitioner’s representation dated 21-09-2007 is clearly intended to overawe the disciplinary proceedings and this conclusion is inescapable in view of the fact that the petitioner has also marked a copy of this representation to the Inquiring Authority requesting not to initiate the disciplinary inquiry till the disposal of the application. The integrity of public service of which initiation of disciplinary proceedings (where cause exists for conducting an inquiry) is integral, cannot be permitted to be overawed by such tactics adopted by the public servants. Even though a public servant perceives himself to be innocent of the charge, he must submit to disciplinary inquiry since that is in the larger public interest. Public service is not an insular institution. It exists to serve the larger cause of public interest in the civil society. When a serious allegation of misconduct particularly by a family member of an employee in the judicial service participating in the Court auction is alleged, it is the duty of the establishment to conduct an inquiry and ascertain the truth of the matter where on facts a prima facie case of misconduct is made out. If the petitioner were serious in his assertions as set out in the complaint that some other employees are involved, it was his duty to name such employees who were involved to assist in further investigation against such concerned employees of the judicial unit of Nellore district, as well. On the aforesaid analysis, this Court does not consider the impugned order of suspension to be a disproportionate response to the serious and reckless allegations made by the petitioner in his representation dated 21-09-2007. In the totality of the circumstances and however having regard to the serious allegations set out in the charges (relating to the involvement of the petitioner’s wife participating in Court auction sales), the respondent is directed to ensure expeditious conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. None of the observations herein are intended as an expression on the merits of the petitioner’s conduct which is the subject matter of the articles of charge framed against him. The disciplinary inquiry shall proceed in accordance with law and on the material on record in the inquiry. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J Dated: 13-02-2008 Pvks/*