THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.13805 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner is a member of A.P.Judicial Service. He is Senior Civil Judge at Asifabad. From first week of July, 2005 to the first week of January, 2006, he worked as Principal Senior Civil Judge in Ranga Reddy District. During this period, applications in E.P.No.144 of 1999 in O.S.No.24 of 1998 were filed in the Court. E.A.No.181 of 2005 (first E.A.,) was for encashing Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) for being paid to Judgment Debtor (J.Dr.,) and another application being E.A.No.202 of 2005 (second E.A.,) was for ordering payment. The petitioner passed orders on 08.08.2005 in first E.A. for payment of Rs.32,75,450/- and the second E.A. on 05.09.2005. A week after passing of payment order by petitioner, crime No.787 of 2005 was registered at P.S., Saroornagar at the instance of an Advocate representing Sri Ranjit Malhotra, Judgment Debtor, alleging that Sri Dinesh Chopra impersonated the former and withdrew the money. The petitioner, statedly on the directions of the learned District Judge, conducted enquiry, which formed the basis of a report sent by District Judge to the High Court. In substance, the report alleged that Sri Lakna Reddy, Office Superintendent; Sri A.C.Ravindran, Senior Assistant; Sri B.Ganapathi, Junior Assistant; concerned Advocate and petitioner were players in the scam. High Court then initiated disciplinary proceedings against petitioner. Nine charges were framed and the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, was appointed as enquiry officer. During enquiry, Department examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.31. The petitioner examined one Sri Syed Khaja Moinuddin, Superintendent, as D.W.1 and marked Exs.D1 to D.14. After considering evidence, enquiry officer held charges 1 and 9 as not proved and charges 2 to 8 are partly proved. High Court, after following procedure contemplated under A.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1992 imposed minor penalty of stoppage of withholding two increments without cumulative effect. The proceedings of High Court, dated 19.02.2008 are impugned in the writ petition. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the charges, which were held partly proved, contained an allegation that petitioner in connivance with office staff with ulterior motive passed orders on cheque petitions. There was no evidence whatsoever on record to prove the allegations of connivance/collusion and therefore, findings of enquiry officer are perverse. He also submits that when the findings of enquiry officer are not based on any acceptable evidence, in judicial review it is permissible for the Court to re-examine evidence on record to arrive at finding. Per contra, learned standing counsel submits that the record itself shows that petitioner was not diligent enough while ordering payment of such huge amount and without even identifying the person entitled to such payment, orders are passed and therefore, it is always a matter of inference which is permissible in law. The scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is well settled nay axiomatic. Appreciation of evidence or acceptance of new evidence by Court of Judicial Review unexceptionally barred. The interference, in such matters, is called for only when disciplinary authority arrived at finding of guilt of the charged officer in an arbitrary manner without considering evidence or without therebeing any evidence. Even in such cases, it is not the ipxi dixit of the Court. If the evidence available prompts two views, in deference, the opinion of disciplinary authority, has to be accepted. In this case, the gravaman of charges 2 to 8 is that petitioner without verifying the identity of applicant in E.A.No.202 of 2005 acted without due diligence and in deviation of usual procedure, passed orders on cheque petitions. Even if enquiry officer held that charge of collusion and extraneous consideration are absent, still the Court cannot ignore the fact that the procedure contemplated under relevant rules 230 to 235 of Civil Rules of Practice, was not followed stricto sensu, which itself is a serious matter while examining question of misconduct of judicial officer. It is now well settled that even when a judicial officer acts in deviation of Rules and arbitrarily while passing orders judicially, the same attracts charge of misconduct. After perusing enquiry report, we are convinced that there is adequate evidence to support the finding of enquiry officer that charges 2 to 8 are partly proved. Further more, High Court took a lenient view and imposed minor penalty of stoppage of two increments. We do not, therefore, find any reason much less a strong reason to interfere in the matter. The writ petition, therefore, is accordingly dismissed in limine. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ____________________ (G.CHANDRAIAH, J) 02.07.2008 pln