THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W P No.10498 of 2010 Between P. Bhaskar Reddy v. The Registrar (Administration) High Court of A.P. Hyderabad and others. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W P No.10498 of 2010 Oral Order : ( Per Sri GM, J ) 1) The petitioner while working as Superintendent in the court of Junior Civil Judge, Kanigiri, a complaint dated 18-8-2007 was made by the Bar Association of Kanigiri against the conduct of the petitioner. Thus, the origin of the disciplinary proceedings by the 2nd respondent-District Judge, Prakasham District at Ongole ( hereinafter referred to as “District Judge”) was the representation by the Bar Association, Kanigiri. 2) The District Judge, being the disciplinary authority, called for explanation of the delinquent and considering the explanation of the delinquent, invited report from the Presiding Officer of the concerned Court and on consideration of the same, framed seven charges and issued chrarge-sheet calling for the written statement of the delinquent employee. 3) The delinquent employee submitted his detailed written statement, after which the District Judge- disciplinary authority appointed an Inquiring Authority to inquire into the matter. The Inquiring Officer after conducting a detailed enquiry, submitted enquiry report to the District Judge opining that the charge No.7 alone was proved to some extent. Thereafter, the District Judge issued a show cause notice to the delinquent as to why he should not be removed from service, to which the delinquent prayed that a lenient view may be taken. The District Judge by his proceedings dated 30-8-2008 awarded punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect, against which the delinquent employee preferred appeal to the 1st respondent- appellate authority. The 1st respondent-appellate authority too came to the conclusion that delinquent employee was given every reasonable opportunity at every stage to answer the charges and the allegations against him and that the minimal punishment imposed cannot be considered disproportionate to the proved misconduct of the delinquent and the quantum of monetary loss is neither heavy nor will be relevant in considering the justness and adequacy of punishment, and thus dismissed his appeal. Hence, this writ petition. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that out of 7 charges, 6 charges were not proved, in respect of 7th charge, basing on the report Ex.A.5 given by P.W.2-Presiding Officer, the Inquiring Officer held that it is partly proved and that the report of P.W.2 was not communicated to the petitioner. It is further submitted that prior to complaint by the Bar Association, no memo was issued by P.W.2 and basing on the opinion given before the enquiry officer by P.W.2 the findings recorded on that count are unsustainable, and that the punishment imposed being harsh to the charge alleged and therefore needs to be modified. 5) Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 6) The chare no.7, which was partly proved, reads as follows : “….. 7. That you Sri P. Bhaskara Reddy, while working as Superintendent, JCJ Court Kanigiri, during the period from May 2007 to 14.9.2007 is having indifferent and adamant attitude and never cares to give proper replies to the Presiding Officer of JCJ Court, Kanigiri, which conduct of yours tantamounts nothing but disobedience of superior officer, if proved or established, would amount to gross negligence and dereliction of duty within the meaning of Rule-3 of APCS Conduct Rules 1964.” 7) Before the enquiry officer, P.W.2 categorically deposed that the delinquent employee was having indifferent and adamant attitude and never cared to give proper replies whenever she was advising the delinquent. Though P.W.2 did not issue any memo and did not report to the District Judge, the delinquent himself in his reply to the show cause notice issued by the District Judge referred that the Magistrate (P.W.2) was kind enough to advice him to maintain good relationship and to learn work. The version of Presiding Officer, finds corroboration with the version of delinquent himself and therefore the contention that the petitioner was not given the report of P.W.2 does not merit consideration. The minor punishment imposed cannot be considered disproportionate to the proved misconduct and therefore we do not see any ground to interfere with minor punishment imposed by the authorities. 8) The writ petition thus fails and is dismissed. No costs. ________________ GM, J ________________ GC, J 5-7-2010/kk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W P No.10498 of 2010 5-7-2010