IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 4933 of 2008 Between: 1. N.Sambaiah, S/o.Narsaiah, Sr.Asst, Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Narsampeta, Warangal Dist. 2. R.Vidyasagar Reddy, S/o.Papi Reddy, Junior Asst, rest do. 3. K.Vidyasagar Rao, S/o.Late Tirumalarao, Sr.Asst., II Addl.District Judge’s Court, Warangal. 4. G.Vijender, S/o.Ramakrishnaiah, PCR Court, Warangal. 5. K.Saraiah, S/o.Veeraiah, Spl.JFCM Court, Mulugu, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1. District and Sessions Judge, Warangal. 2. Senior Civil Judge – cum- Enquiry Officer, Jangaon, Warangal District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue any writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings commencing from the Chargesheet: DC/WGL/AE- E/Dis.No.10206 dated 28/12/2007 and DC/WGL/AE-E/Dis.No.10207 dated 28.12.2007 and DC/WGL/AW-E/Dis.No.10208 dated 28.12.2007 as arbitrary, illegal and without the authority of law and nullify the same and pas such other relief or reliefs as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: Dr.P.B.Vijaya Kumar. Counsel for the Respondents: SC FOR APHC The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.4933 of 2008 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The five petitioners herein are Judicial Ministerial Service employees in Warangal District Unit. At the relevant time they were working in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Narsampet. In February 2006 a report was sent to the learned District Judge that some important documents filed in C.C.No.320 of 2002 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Narsampet, were missing. A report was called for from the learned Junior Civil Judge. Based on the report, the petitioners were called to explain. Be it noted, in one way or the other, all the petitioners were alleged to have handled the record in C.C.No.320 of 2002. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioners, the learned District Judge initiated disciplinary enquiry. The learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Warangal, was appointed as Enquiry Officer in the disciplinary enquiry against petitioner Nos.1 to 4, whereas the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct disciplinary enquiry against petitioner No.5. The charges framed against the petitioners are as below. CHARGE ON N.SAMBAIAH: That you Sri N.Sambaiah, Sr.Asst., while handling the criminal section of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Narsampet have received C.A.No.232/2002 along with original documents after compliance but the copy applications along with the documents (1) Original cheque bearing No.165257, Dt:12-3-2002 for Rs.9,00,000/-. (2) Original pronote executed by the Accused namely Bura Vinay for Rs.9,00,000/-. (3) Bank Memo issued by the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India. (4) Copy of Legal Notice Dt:15-5-2002 in C.C.No.320/2002 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Narsampet were found to be missing in the file which shows your gross negligence in placing the documents in the file after compliance of copy application, hence you are responsible for missing of the documents of the said documents. CHARGE NO.1 ON R.VIDYASAGAR REDDY: That you Sri R.Vidyasagar Reddy, Jr.Asst.,handling the criminal section from 7-8-2004 have not placed any note before the Presiding Officers at the time of submission of the cases records in C.C.No.320/2002 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Narsampet for consideration in CRP No.46/2004 on the file of VI-Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal at Mahabubabad regarding the missing of the documents (1) Original cheque bearing No.165257, Dt:12-3-2002 for Rs.9,00,000/-. (2) Original pronote executed by the Accused namely Bura Vinay for Rs.9,00,000/-. (3) Bank Memo issued by the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India. (4) Copy of Legal Notice Dt:15-5-2002 in C.C.No.320/2002 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Narsampet and submitted the entire file after duly indexing which shows the records were present in the file and were missing during your tenure, hence you are responsible for missing of the same. CHARGE NO.2 ON R.VIDYASAGAR REDDY: That you Sri R.Vidyasagar Reddy, Jr.Asst., handling the criminal section from 7-8-2004 have placed C.C.No.320/2002 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Narsampet for further chief- examination of PW1 and found that the documents (1) Original cheque bearing No.165257, Dt:12-3-2002 for Rs.9,00,000/-. (2) Original pronote executed by the Accused namely Bura Vinay for Rs.9,00,000/-. (3) Bank Memo issued by the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India. (4) Copy of Legal Notice Dt:15- 5-2002 were missing and inspite of directions issued by the Presiding Officer you have not trace out the above records and have submitted explanation after lapse of 7 months time stating that you are dealing criminal section without charge and not responsible for missing of the same, which shows your collusion with the Accused. CHARGE ON K.VIDYASAGAR RAO: That you Sri K.Vidyasagar Rao, Sr.Asst., II-Additional District and Sessions Court, Warangal previously worked as Deputy Nazir in Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Narsampet attending the criminal bench have handled the case records in C.C.No.320/2002 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Narsampet, but the documents(1) Original cheque bearing No.165257, Dt:12-3-2002 for Rs.9,00,000/-. (2) Original pronote executed by the Accused namely Bura Vinay for Rs.9,00,000/-. (3) Bank Memo issued by the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India. (4) Copy of Legal Notice Dt:15-5-2002 were missing in the said file which shows your negligence in handling the file and you are responsible for missing of the same. CHARGE ON G.VIJENDER: That you Sri G.Vijender, Jr.Asst., PCR Court, Warangal while working as Jr.Assistant in Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Narsampet have received the detailed charge on 17-9-2003 from N.Sambaiah, Jr.Asst., on transfer but the documents(1) Original cheque bearing No.165257, Dt:12-3-2002 for Rs.9,00,000/-. (2) Original pronote executed by the Accused namely Bura Vinay for Rs.9,00,000/-. (3) Bank Memo issued by the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India. (4) Copy of Legal Notice Dt:15-5-2002 in C.C.No.320/2002 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Narsampet were missing which shows you gross negligence in handling the files, hence you are responsible for missing of the same. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, who was the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry against petitioner No.5 also framed a similar charge. The Enquiry Officer, who conducted enquiry against petitioner Nos.1 to 4, submitted report vide PR No.24 of 2006, dated 15.12.2006, and the other Enquiry Officer submitted report on 15.08.2007. Here, it may be noticed that after receiving the report of the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Warangal, learned District Judge passed orders on 28.01.2007 ordering a fresh enquiry. After receiving the other report on 15.08.2007, the learned District Judge considered the matter again, and by proceedings dated 28.12.2007 thought it fit to order a fresh enquiry having regard to the conflicting reports of the two Enquiry Officers. Accordingly, learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, was appointed as Enquiry Officer, with request to submit the report by 03.03.2008. On the same day, the learned District Judge also appointed Chief Ministerial Officer, Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Jangaon, as Presenting Officer. Aggrieved by both proceedings of the learned District Judge, dated 28.12.2007, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition seeking their invalidation. Learned Counsel for petitioners, Sri P.V.L.Bhanu Prakash, submits that the impugned proceedings are in contravention of Rule 21(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereafter called, CCA Rules). According to the learned Counsel, when once the disciplinary authority declines to accept the exoneration report of the Enquiry Officer, he can only order further enquiry into the same charges and a fresh charge sheet cannot be issued. He placed reliance on C.D.Prabhu v D.C.Kanara District[1], K.R.Deb v Collector, Central Excise, Shillon[2] and Mathura Prasad v Union of India[3] in support of the contention. He also submits that if a fresh enquiry is ordered by issuing a fresh charge sheet, it amounts to a second enquiry, which is prohibited in law. We have considered the submissions and decisions cited by the learned Counsel very carefully. We are afraid, we cannot accept any of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners for reasons more than one. A perusal of sub rule (1) of Rule 21 of CCA Rules shows that the disciplinary authority has got ample power to remit the case to enquiring authority for further enquiry and report. In such an event, Rule 21(1) of CCA Rules requires the enquiring officer to adhere to the procedure under Rule 20 of CCA Rules as far as possible. The phrase in Rule 21(1) of CCA Rules is “…remit the case to the inquiring authority for further enquiry…”. The power to remit the matter for a further enquiry and report includes the power to issue the charge sheet containing the same charges or additional charges which may be as a result of recasting of the charges. Be it noted that after supercession of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1963 (1963 Rules, for brevity), it is incumbent on the part of the disciplinary authority alone to frame the charges unlike under 1963 Rules when the charges were framed by the Enquiry Officers. The distinction between the 1963 Rules and 1991 Rules cannot be forgotten while interpreting the procedure contemplated under Rules 20 and 21 of CCA Rules and the effect thereof on the disciplinary enquiry. In the present case, there is no denial that while appointing the Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, to conduct enquiry, the learned District Judge has issued the same charge sheet. The only difference is instead of issuing two charge sheets one to petitioner Nos.1 to 4 and another to petitioner No.5 a single charge sheet was issued. This is in accordance with Rule 20(3)(i) read with Rule 21(1) of CCA Rules. In the various decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners the factual background and matrix is altogether different. In all the cases, after issuing a final show cause notice of imposing punishment qua the enquiry report, instead of passing a final order, a de novo enquiry was conducted. The Courts, therefore, took a view that unless and until final orders are passed by giving reasons, a fresh enquiry cannot be ordered. In Mathura Prasad (supra) the Supreme Court noticed that the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer was not accepted by the disciplinary authority, but no reasons were furnished therefor. The observations are as follows. …The disciplinary authority merely sent a demi-official letter to the enquiry officer. He did not pass any order. The file was sent back to him for a clear remark on every point of charges framed against the appellant. It could not have been either an order passed in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 or sub-rule (3) thereof. The disciplinary authority was a statutory authority. He was, therefore, bound to act within the four corners of the statute. Procedures relating to conduct of a disciplinary proceedings have been laid down by the Rules. He was bound to follow the same scrupulously… The enquiry officer in his first report might not have specifically recorded his findings with reference to each of the charges leveled against the appellant but he arrived at a finding on analysis of the materials on record. If he was to differ with the said findings on the basis of any fresh materials, he was enjoined with a duty to grant another opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The above observations would also support the view we have taken. There cannot be any doubt that after considering both the reports, the learned District Judge passed well considered proceedings on 28.12.2007 whereby and whereunder a fresh decision was taken to remit the matter to an Enquiry Officer. However, we make it clear that it is always open to the petitioners to agitate about any perceived irregularity in the method and manner of conducting enquiry or completed disciplinary proceedings. We are also of the opinion that having regard to the nature of the charges, the present Enquiry Officer should complete the enquiry within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already completed. The Writ Petition, with the above observations, is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ______________ (C.V.RAMULU, J) 02.04.2008 vs To 1. The District and Sessions Judge, Warangal. 2. The Senior Civil Judge – cum- Enquiry Officer, Jangaon, Warangal District. 3. 2 CD copies. [1] 1969 SLR 362 [2] AIR 1971 SC 1447 [3] (2007) 1 SCC 437