THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BILAL NAZKI and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATESWARA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.373 of 2003 DATED: -10-2006 Between: M. Kanthamma ..Petitioner And The Registrar (Administration), High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. and another ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BILAL NAZKI and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATESWARA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.373 of 2003 ORDER: (per BN,J) This Writ Petition is filed by a lady, who was working as Full Time Masalchi in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Khammam, and who has been removed from service by order of the District and Sessions Judge, Khammam, dated 04.06.2001, which has been upheld in an appeal by the High Court. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and gone through the record. On the basis of the allegations levelled by the Senior Civil Judge, Khammam, an enquiry was ordered by the District Judge, and two charges were framed, which read as under: “ARTICLE -I That the said Smt.M.Kanthamma in pursuance of the District Court’s circular issued in Dis.No.2212 dt.26.05.1999 was directed to clean the Court and Court premises by removing the dust and wastage and keep the premises very clean; that in spite of the said order she was not cleaning the Court on the ground that they shall be removed by the Gram Panchayat employees and it is not part of her duty and that she was also not properly cleaning the Chambers, Court Hall, Office Room and furniture and that the said refusal of office order amounts to dereliction of duties and disobedience to the Office Administration. ARTICLE-II That the said Smt.M.Kanthamma is an absorbed Attender from FTM; that she has to work not less than 8 hours a day, but she was not working even for 3 hours a day and leaving the office without informing anybody including the Presiding Officer, CMO and Head Clerk, that the office order made on 14.06.1999 informing her that she should report for duty at 6.30 a.m. and work up to 11.30 a.m. and again she must report to duty at 3 p.m. and work up to 6 p.m.; that she has failed to follow the said direction and she has refused to report for duty as per the above said order and unauthorisedly absenting herself from discharging her duties and that therefore, it amounts to misconduct and misdemeanour.” In the enquiry, the second charge was not proved and the first charge was proved. The first charge is pertaining to an allegation that she was not cleaning the Court and Court premises and was not removing the dust and wastage. In spite of orders having been passed earlier, she had declined to clean the premises, Chambers, Court hall, office room and furniture. The complaint was made by the Senior Civil Judge, Khammam, who later on, in the enquiry, became the prime witness and as a matter of fact, the only witness against the delinquent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no evidence in this case recorded by the enquiry officer, except the statement of PW.1, who was the complainant himself and the complainant was biased from the initial stages itself. In this connection, he relies on the memo issued by him on 11.06.1999, which is Ex.P.3. This memo was issued only after 10 days of the petitioner having joined in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Khammam. Within 10 days, PW.1 had framed an opinion, which is expressed in the memo itself. The memo discloses as under: “…From the date of your joining in this Court, you are too adamant towards the Officer and Staff. You are behaving recklessly. You are not discharging your duties properly and regularly. You are not attending to the duties within time and you are not working for the full time of not less than 8 hours a day. You were leaving the premises without informing either the Officer or the C.M.O., or the Head Clerk…” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the enquiry report itself, it has been stated that although three witnesses were examined, i.e., PWs.1 to 3, but nothing was stated by PWs.2 and 3 with regard to allegations under charge No.1. It was only PW.1 on whose testimony the enquiry officer relied. In the enquiry report itself, it has been stated that PW.1 issued Ex.P.9-memo, and explanation was submitted by the petitioner under Ex.P.10. Thereafter, PW.1 gave a detailed report, Ex.P.11, to the District Judge, Khammam, to take action against the President of the Class- IV Employees’ Association, because according to PW.1, the petitioner had complained to the President of the Class-IV Employees’ Association. Then, Ex.P.12, official memo, was issued by the District Judge, and Ex.P.13 was the explanation given by her. Since so many allegations were made against the petitioner, which became the subject matter of the first charge, in our view, it was necessary to have some other witnesses examined to show that the petitioner was not obeying the instructions of the officer concerned. Since the petitioner was working only as Masalchi, had put in 18 years of service, and has been removed from service, we feel that the appellate authority should have taken into consideration the relevancy of the evidence produced by the department against the petitioner and the proportionality of punishment, at least at the time of considering the appeal. We also feel that during enquiry, it is not revealed as to what are the exact duties of the Masalchi, which they are supposed to perform, because during the evidence in the enquiry, it is revealed that she was also asked to stamp the documents, which she was not doing. In those circumstances, without disturbing the order of the District Judge, we set aside the order passed by the High Court in the appeal and direct its reconsideration, in view of the observations made in this judgment. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ (BILAL NAZKI, J) October, 2006. ____________________________ (M.VENKATESWARA REDDY, J) GJ