IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 20028 of 2008 Between: G. Laxmi Devi, W/o. late G. Narasimhulu, R/o. 6-201, Telugu Street, Kurnool. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 District Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 2 The Registrar Administration, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS or any other appropriate Writ (i) declaring the proceedings PR No. 27-A/Estt/2000 dated 4-9-2002 dismissal of appeal order vide order ROC No. 61/2004,CII/1 dated 7-12-2004 and the official memorandum in ROC No. 2323/2004-C.I(6) dated 30-12-2005 rejecting my request for compassionate appointment as illegal and arbitrary and consequently (ii) direct the respondents to pay the pension and other benefits to which the petitioner's husband is entitled to and (iii) direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner herein on compassionate grounds in any suitable post and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.SHIVA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.M.BHASKARA LAKSHMI (SC FOR APHC) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V. SANJAY KUMAR Writ Petition No. 20028 of 2008 Oral Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) The petitioner is the widow of one G. Narasimhulu, who entered service as an Attender in the Kurnool District judicial unit in 1975. While working as such in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pattikonda, a charge sheet was issued on 07.03.2001 specifying eight counts of misconduct. After a due process of enquiry, the disciplinary authority, the learned District Judge by an order dated 04.09.2002 concurred with the conclusions of the Enquiry Officer, found the petitioner guilty of charges 1 to 6 and imposed the punishment of removal from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner appealed to the High Court on the administrative side and, by the order dated 07.12.2004, the appellate authority on an independent analysis of the material on record found no warrant for appellate interference, concurred with the order of the disciplinary authority finding the charged employee guilty of charges 1 to 6 and rejected the appeal. Having regard to the gravity of the charges established against Sri G. Narasimhulu in the disciplinary proceedings, with which the appellate authority concurred, the appellate authority sustained the penalty of removal imposed on Sri G. Narasimhulu as it was not disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committed. During the pendency of appeal before the High Court, Sri Narasimhulu died on 13.10.2004 leaving behind the petitioner, the widow and three children. On 24.11.2004 the petitioner while intimating the demise of Sri Narasimhulu applied for compassionate appointment. By the impugned order dated 30.12.2005, the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment and for grant of pension was rejected, and hence, this writ petition challenging the order dated 30.12.2005 rejecting the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment and pension as well as the earlier order dated 04.09.2002 of the disciplinary authority visiting Sri Narasimhulu with the penalty of removal from service and the order dated 07.12.2004 of the appellate authority rejecting the appeal of Sri Narasimhulu. On a careful consideration of the material on record including the order of the appellate authority dated 07.12.2004, this Court finds no justification whatsoever for judicial review of the order of removal of Sri G. Narasimhulu, as affirmed by the appellate authority. As Sri Narasimhulu was not in service as on the date of death and as he had also suffered the penalty of removal from service, the petitioner as the widow is not entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate basis. The order of the High Court on the administrative side dated 30.12.2005, rejecting the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment and pension, suffers from no infirmity warranting interference. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J. ______________________ P.V. SANJAY KUMAR, J. Date: 11.12.2008 Nsr