IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 2930 of 2008 Between: 1 The Director, Juvenile Welfare Correctional Services and Welfare of Street Children, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Principal Secretary to Government, Women Development, Child Welfare and Disabled Welfare, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND Sri R. Balaprasad, Superintendent (Dismissed from Service), R/o. D.No. 17-2-382d, Kurmaguda Saidabad, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT 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 appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Certiorari" calling for the records relating to and connected with the order in O.A.No. 5061/2007 dated 13-11-2007 on the file of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash or set aside the same by holding as erroneous and contrary to law. Counsel for the Petitioners: GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent: Party-in-person . The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 2930 OF 2008 ORDER: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU) 1. The Director, Juvenile Welfare, Correctional Services and Welfare of Street Children, A.P., Hyderabad & another filed this Writ Petition challenging the Order dated 30.11.2007 in O.A. No.5061 of 2007, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The brief facts that led to filing of the O.A. by the respondent may be stated as follows. While the respondent was working as Superintendent, Government Special Homes for Boys, Hyderabad, a case in crime no. 51 of 1999 under Sections 189, 353 and 506 I.P.C. of Kasapuram police station, Anantapur district, was registered, on a complaint given by Sri A.Chandra Babu, the then Junior Civil Judge, Guntakal. The same was registered as C.C. No.155 of 2005 on the file Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntakal. By its judgment dated 6.8.2007, the trial Court convicted the respondent of the offences under Sections 189 and 506 I.P.C., and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 189 I.P.C., and to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 506 I.P.C., but suspended the sentence facilitating him to prefer appeal. The respondent preferred Criminal Appeal No.87 of 2007 before the Sessions Court, Anantapur, and the appellate Court, by its order dated 20.8.2007 in Crl.M.P. No.574 of 2007, suspended the sentence of imprisonment pending disposal of the appeal. The first petitioner issued impugned proceedings No. EA1/202/2007, dated 22.8.2007 dismissing the respondent from service, consequent upon the conviction. Challenging the same, the respondent filed the present O.A. 3. It is stated in the O.A. that the charges which were held proved against the respondent are trivial in nature and that the respondent has put up unblemished service of 27 years and he was not subjected to any charges either departmental or judicial; that the petitioners have no right to dismiss the respondent retrospectively i.e. from the date of conviction; that the first petitioner has not applied his mind while passing the impugned order; that without examining the gravity of the offence, the impugned order was passed; that unless and until the appellate Court affirms the conviction recorded by the trial Court, it cannot be said that the findings have become final. Hence, it is prayed to set aside the impugned order. 4. The petitioners herein, filed counter affidavit in the O.A. stating that it is incorrect to state that the individual rendered unblemished service of 27 long years and the government appointed a Commissionerate of Enquiries to conduct a detailed enquiry in respect of the disciplinary cases in which charges were framed against the respondent; that the Government has got power to take action for dismissal of a public servant convicted on corruption and criminal misconduct immediately after such conviction, without waiting for result in the appeal; that threatening a Judicial Officer in court hall is not a minor offence; that the respondent should have understanding of his responsibilities both as a government servant as well as head of the family. Hence, it is prayed for dismissal of the O.A. 5. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, set aside the impugned order of dismissal of the respondent herein, solely on the ground that the order is hit by principle of sub-judice. 6. The learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the petitioners contended that on conviction by the trial Court, the respondent was removed from service; that mere pendency of an appeal is not a ground to reinstate the respondent or keep him under suspension; that Rule 25 (i) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short, ‘the Rules’), is clear that where penalty is imposed on a Government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, the authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such order thereon as it thinks fit; that threatening a Judicial Officer cannot be said to be trivial in nature. Hence, he prayed to set aside the impugned order of O.A. 7. The respondent, appearing party-in-person, contended that he had unblemished service of 27 years in the department and no disciplinary cases are pending against him; that the sentence of imprisonment has been suspended by the appellate Court and the appeal is still pending; that the charges levelled against him are very trivial in nature, which has been admitted even by the defacto complainant; that he has left with one year service to retire on superannuation. Hence, he prays to dismiss the Writ Petition. 8. Under Rule 25(i) of the Rules, notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 20 to Rule 24, where penalty is imposed on a Government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, the disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit. The expression ‘appropriate orders’ would include imposition of any penalty as provided under Rule 9 of the Rules, without conducting any enquiry. As a matter of fact, as per Rule 25 of the Rules, the disciplinary authority had got wider scope and power whether to impose a punishment or not, if so, the quantum of punishment. The disciplinary authority has to take note of the entire conduct of the delinquent officer and the gravity of the misconduct, whether to impose such misconduct would have any impact on the administration. 9. Admittedly, in this case, conviction recorded against the respondent is not suspended by the appellate Court. Suspension of sentence alone does not confer any right to interfere with the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority exercising the jurisdiction under Rule 25(i) of the Rules. So long as the conviction is not suspended, the same shall be deemed to be in operation and the effect of such conviction does not come to an end. 10. It is the case of prosecution in the criminal case registered against the respondent that on 22.11.1999 at about 4.00 PM, when the defacto complainant, who was the then Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntakal, was on Bench in court hall, the accused entered into open court and first requested the defacto complainant to help him in a case, which was referred by him to police on the news item published in a news paper with regard to subjecting a child to bonded labour in the house of the respondent, using his influence with police. When the defacto complainant stated that the accused could not come like that and advised him to meet any advocate for help, the respondent threatened the defacto complainant saying that he has to take back the complaint or advise police to refer the case, or else he would see his end. The advocates present in the court hall and the Process Server witnessed the incident. It is further alleged that two days thereafter, it seems that a phone call was also received by the defacto complainant during lunch recess and he identified the voice of the person who made the phone call, as that of the respondent, who abused and threatened him. It is also alleged that the complainant also had information that the accused was planning to foist a case against him under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as the delinquent officer belongs to S.T. community. So, on the complaint lodged by the defacto complaint, police registered the case, and laid charge after completion of investigation. 11. No doubt, the defacto complainant, who was examined as P.W.1, admitted that the occurrence was trivial in nature, but the way in which the respondent behaved in the Court is highly objectionable and unwarranted. The Magistrate discharged his judicial function by referring the matter to police. The respondent/accused has no business to dictate terms to Court either to withdraw the case or direct police to refer the matter. Prima facie, the alleged acts of the respondent are derogatory and undermine the image of the judiciary in the eyes of public. So, under these circumstances, the conduct and behaviour of the respondent cannot be said to be trivial in nature. When a person interferes with the system of administration of justice, it is a serious concern, which will affect the system of administration of justice. 12. After conviction by the trial Court, the respondent was rightly dismissed by the disciplinary authority exercising the powers under Section 25(i) of the Rules. The Tribunal ought not to have set aside the impugned orders on the ground of doctrine of sub-judice. As already pointed out, so long as the conviction is not suspended, the matter cannot be said to be sub judice. Since the impugned order of the Tribunal is not based upon correct law and it does not contain any reasons of whatsoever, it is liable to be set aside. 13. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed, setting aside the Order dated 30.11.2007 in O.A. No.5061 of 2007 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. No costs. 14. However, it is made clear that observations, if any, made in this order are only for the purpose of disposal of this Writ Petition and the same shall not have any bearing or effect on the adjudication of the Criminal Appeal filed by the respondent, and the appellate Court shall pass judgment basing on the evidence available on record and in accordance with law. --------------------------------- JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA -------------------------------- JUSTICE K.C.BHANU .03.2008. DRK Copy to: Two CCs to G.P. for Services-I. Two CD copies.