HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3711 of 2007 ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy) The petitioner, who was a member of A.P.Judicial Service, has filed this writ petition, challenging the validity of the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.21 Law (LA & J Courts) Department, dated 16th January 2006, imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement, on proven misconduct, pursuant to disciplinary proceedings initiated against him under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. 2. The petitioner has initially joined in the Judicial Department as a Junior Assistant on 18.09.1972. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant on 18.02.1984, and to the post of Head Clerk on 03.05.1989, and was further promoted to the post of Sheristedar on 26.06.1993. He opted to A.P. State Judicial service and joined as a District Munsiff on 15.04.1996, and was posted as Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad in Ranga Reddy District with effect from 26.06.1996. He worked as such at Vikarabad up to 17.12.1997, and thereafter, he was transferred as Junior Civil Judge, Pakala in Chittoor District. Subsequently, he was posted as Junior Civil Judge, Sattupalli during the year 2005. While he was working at Sattupalli, pursuant to the impugned orders imposing penalty on him, he was compulsorily retired from service. 3 . When the petitioner was working as Junior Civil Judge at Vikarabad, he proceeded on earned leave from 03.11.1997 to 22.11.1997 by availing public holiday on 23.11.1997. When the petitioner was away from headquarters, a theft took place in his residential house on the intervening night of 9/10.11.1997. Immediately thereafter, the Head Clerk of the Court, by name Mr.D.V.Ranga Reddy, lodged a Police complaint. Coming to know about the inspection of his Court by the learned District Judge of Ranga Reddy District on 22.11.1997, the petitioner came to headquarters on 19.11.1997, and on the ground that the proposed inspection by the District Judge was postponed, he left the headquarters to avail the balance period of leave. After availing the leave, the petitioner returned back to headquarters on 24.11.1997. 4. One Sri K.V.N.Prasad, Attender of the Junior Civil Judge Court, Vikarabad, who was posted on night duty at the Court, committed suicide on the intervening night of 26/27.11.1997 and his body was found hanging to a tree in the Court complex. Mr.K.V.N.Prasad was a suspect with regard to the theft occurred in the residential quarter of the petitioner on the intervening night of 9/10.11.1997. On 27.11.1997, the wife of the deceased gave a report under Ex.P-1 to the S.I. of Police, to take action against the delinquent officer, one Srikanth, S.I. of Police and also against the Head Constable of Vikarabad Police Station. Initially, based on the complaint given by the Head Clerk of the Court Sri D.V.Ranga Reddy, a case was registered against unknown offenders, but in view of the report submitted by the wife of the deceased, a case was registered against the petitioner and others. In view of the complaint lodged against the petitioner, initially, a preliminary report was sent by the Subordinate Judge, Vikarabad, and thereupon, the then Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, submitted a report to the High Court on 28.11.1997. Based on the report submitted by the learned District Judge, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by framing the following charge : “That you Sri P.Jagadeeswar, while working as Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, the Police of Vikarabad at your instance tortured Sri K.V.N.Prasad, Attender of Junior Civil Judge’s Cour t, Vikarabad physically and beat him severely in a case filed with regard to the alleged theft committed in your residence on the intervening night of 9/10.11.1997 and registered as Crime No.219/97 under Secs.457 and 380 IPC, and you also harassed him mentally and compelled him to confess the guilt or otherwise he would be dismissed from service; that the s a i d Prasad, unable to bear the mental harassment caused by you and the physical torture by the Police at your instance, committed suicide on the intervening night of 26th and 27th November, 1997 (by hanging to a tree) in the Court compound, which act of yours, if proved or established, would amount to gross misuse and abuse of authority and unbecoming of a judicial officer within the meaning of Rule 3 of A.P.Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964.” 5. For the aforesaid charge, the petitioner has filed his explanation denying the same and requested to drop further proceedings in the matter. However, dissatisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner/delinquent officer, the disciplinary authority has proceeded further with the inquiry, by appointing Sri Ch.V.Subba Rao, District Judge, as an Inquiry Officer and one Sri M.Raja Mouli Sharma, Senior Civil Judge, as Presenting Officer. The petitioner has availed the services of Sri N.K.Rama Rao, Sheristedar, as a Defence Assistant. 6. In the departmental inquiry proceedings, on behalf of the Department, six witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 6. PW-1 was the wife of the deceased Sri K.V.N.Prasad, PW-2 was an Advocate, PW-3 was the then Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, PW-4 was the then Deputy Nazir of Junior Civil Judge Court, Vikarabad, PW-5 was the Scientific Officer of the Forensic Science Laboratory and PW-6 was the then Principal District and Sessions Judge of Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner was also examined under Rule 20(9) of A.P.Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. On behalf of the Department, Exs.P-1 to P-18 were marked. In support of the defence of the delinquent officer, no one was examined, but Exs.D-1 to D-5 were marked. 7. The Inquiry Officer, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, vide his inquiry report, dated 14th February 2005, has held that there was no merit in any of the contentions raised on behalf of the delinquent officer to exonerate him of the charge framed against him, and further recorded a finding that the delinquent officer did not allow the law to take its own course on the report of theft given by the then Head Clerk of his Court. While holding so, the inquiry officer held that the charge framed against the delinquent officer is proved to its hilt. On the administrative side, report was submitted to the 2nd respondent-High Court of A.P., and in view of the findings recorded by the inquiry officer, further comments were invited from the petitioner by supplying a copy of the inquiry report. On examining the comments submitted by the delinquent officer on the findings recorded by the inquiry officer, the 2nd respondent-High Court, on administrative side, has considered the same and recommended to impose the penalty of compulsory retirement. Based on the recommendations of the 2nd respondent-High Court, the Government issued the impugned orders imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement from service on proven misconduct of the petitioner. 8. Heard Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri D.V.Sitaram Murthy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-High Court. 9. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner S ri G.Vidyasagar that in this case, though there is no evidence at all to substantiate the charge framed against the petitioner, the inquiry officer has recorded adverse findings, and based on such findings, the petitioner was imposed with the penalty of compulsory retirement. It is submitted that the inquiry officer has not considered whether there is any acceptable evidence on record to prove the charge framed against the petitioner. It is submitted that having regard to the charge framed against the petitioner in the departmental proceedings, neither there is any evidence in support of the charge to say that the Police of Vikarabad have tortured the deceased at the instance of the petitioner nor any other evidence so as to bring home the guilt of petitioner to show that he has harassed the deceased mentally and compelled him to confess the guilt. It is submitted that merely because the deceased had committed suicide, that by itself, is no ground to record any finding against the petitioner to prove misconduct. It is submitted that it is a case where the inquiry officer has misread the charge, and in the absence of any evidence in support of the charge framed against the petitioner, he has recorded the findings based on surmises and conjectures. It is further submitted that inspite of his comments on the adverse findings recorded against him in the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority has not considered the same and passed orders imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement. 10. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri D.V.Sitaram Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent that in this case, the deceased was tortured only at the instance of the petitioner in connection with the theft committed in his residential quarters on the intervening night of 9/10.11.1997. It is submitted that though the petitioner was on leave from 03.11.1997 to 22.11.1997, but however, he visited the headquarters on 19.11.1997, on which date, his statement was recorded by the Police, suspecting the involvement of the deceased in the theft. It is submitted that in view of the evidence available on record in support of the charge framed against the petitioner, the inquiry officer has correctly recorded his findings, and as the charge is proved in the inquiry proceedings, which were conducted in accordance with the A.P.Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, there are no grounds at all to interfere with the findings recorded by the inquiry officer and also the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority. 11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the material on record, in this case, the charge framed against the petitioner can be divided into two limbs. From the first limb of the charge framed against the petitioner, it is clear that the allegation of torture is attributed to the Police, Vikarabad, and the charge against the petitioner/delinquent officer is that, only at his instance, the Police have tortured the deceased. The second limb of the charge is that the petitioner has harassed the deceased mentally and compelled him to confess the guilt, or otherwise, he would be dismissed from service. It is alleged that unable to bear the mental harassment caused by the petitioner and the physical torture by the Police at the instance of the petitioner, the deceased had committed suicide on the intervening night of 26/27.11.1997. 12. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner, who was a Junior Civil Judge at Vikarabad, was residing in the residential quarters and he was on earned leave from 03.11.1997 to 22.11.1997. The deceased Sri K.V.N.Prasad and one Sri A.Srinivas were Attenders attached to the said Court. Sri A.Srinivas, Attender, was on night duty on 09.11.1997 at the residential quarter of the delinquent/officer and he abstained from night duty on the pretext that he was suffering from stomachache and handed over the key of the residential quarter of the officer to one Sri Sayanna, who was the watchman of the nearby Z.P.H.S.School. It is alleged that the deceased Attender Sri K.V.N.Prasad, who was on night duty, collected the said key on that day at 9.30 p.m., and on the said night, there was a theft in the said residential quarter of the delinquent officer. At first instance, the Head Clerk of the Court Sri D.V.Ranga Reddy, had given a report to the Police, based on which, a case in Crime No.219 of 1997 was registered under Sections 457 and 380 of I.P.C. against unknown offenders. The petitioner was on earned leave from 03.11.1997 to 22.11.1997 and he returned back only on 19.11.1997 due to ensuing inspection of the Court by the District Judge, which was to be held on 22.11.1997, but however, on coming to know about postponement of such inspection, by furnishing the list of articles which were missing in view of the theft in his residential quarters, the petitioner had given a report to the Police and left the headquarters on the same day. After availing his earned leave, he came to headquarters only on 24.11.1997 and the suicide incident of deceased was occurred on the intervening night of 26/27.11.1997. 13. Though the allegation against the petitioner was that the Police tortured the deceased at his instance, and he has also harassed the deceased mentally and compelled him to confess the guilt, but the defence of the petitioner/officer was that he was on leave from 03.11.1997 to 22.11.1997, and as he was not in the headquarters, he was in no way responsible for the suicide committed by Sri K.V.N.Prasad on the intervening night of 26/27.11.1997. Though there is no direct evidence in support of the charge framed against the petitioner/delinquent officer, but the inquiry officer, mainly on the ground of petitioner’s presence in the headquarters on 19.11.1997, and that the presence of Sri K.V.N.Prasad was secured, and was interrogated on the suspicion expressed by the petitioner, came to the conclusion in support of the charge framed against the petitioner/delinquent officer. When a theft had taken place in the petitioner’s house, it is quite natural that a statement would be recorded from him in a case registered in reference to the said incident, and it is the case of the petitioner that on 19.11.1997, as he came to headquarters in view of the proposed inspection by the District Judge, he has given a report to the Police, furnishing the list of articles, which were lost in connection with the case of theft. Even assuming that a suspicion was also expressed by the petitioner, that by itself, is no ground to substantiate the charge framed against the petitioner that the Police have tortured the deceased only at his instance. It is also not in dispute that on the same day, the petitioner/delinquent officer left the headquarters and again he came back to headquarters only on 24.11.1997. From the deposition of PW-4/Deputy Nazir, it is clear that the Attender Sri K.V.N.Prasad was not taken to the Police Station on any date subsequent to 21.11.1997. Merely because the District Judge, in his report, has stated that on 19.11.1997 the Magistrate has returned to the headquarters, verified the articles and furnished the list of stolen articles to Police, is also by itself, is not sufficient to substantiate the charge framed against the petitioner. Even assuming that a suspicion was expressed by the delinquent officer when his statement was recorded on 19.11.1997, the deceased must have been interrogated by the Police, but that does not mean that the petitioner has instigated to torture the deceased in the hands of Police. The inquiry officer, mainly with reference to the evidence of PWs.2 and 4, to the effect that the deceased/Attender was being taken by Police for interrogation in the day time for three days continuously prior to 22.11.1997, has given due weight-age to record his findings against the petitioner. The inquiry officer has further recorded a finding that if really there was no role of the delinquent officer for the deceased Attender to be detained by Police from 19.11.1997 to 22.11.1997, and in the 3rd degree assault on him under the guise of interrogation, there was no reason for the deceased to take the drastic step of committing suicide by hanging to a tree in the Court premises. In the departmental proceedings, unless there is positive evidence in support of the charge, no finding can be recorded against the delinquent/employee on mere presumptions. The finding referred to above will only show that the conclusions are arrived at by the inquiry officer on mere presumptions, without there being any material in support of the charge. PW-1, who is the wife of the deceased, is not a direct witness. Though she has stated in her deposition that after the delinquent officer has returned from leave, again, the deceased was sent to the Police Station, but the same is contrary to the evidence of PW-4/ Deputy Nazir, who has stated in his cross-examination that the deceased was not taken to the Police Station on any subsequent date after 21.11.1997. The deposition of PW-2, who was a practicing advocate at Vikarabad, is only to the effect that 4 to 5 days prior to the date of incident, when he inquired about the theft, the deceased seemed to have stated that the S.I. of Police Srikanth and the Head Constable Janardhan Reddy were harassing him and beating him, saying that he knew as to who committed the said theft. Further, in the cross-examination, PW-2 has categorically admitted that he was examined by the Police at the time of inquest held on Sri K.V.N.Prasad and he found the dead body of Sri Prasad hanging to a tree and his two hands were tied backwards with a rope and that he was present at the time when the dead body was removed from the tree. Even in the deposition of PW-3, the then Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, who has sent a report to the learned District Judge, there is nothing to substantiate the charge against the petitioner, so as to say that the Police, Vikarabad, have tortured the deceased at the instance of the petitioner, or any mental harassment was made by the petitioner to the deceased with reference to the theft in his residential quarters. Even PW-3, in his deposition, has categorically admitted that when he saw the dead body of the deceased, he found that the hands of the deceased were tied to his back with a rope, and he has also admitted that he has not mentioned the said fact in his report under Ex.P-2. PW-4, who was working as a Deputy Nazir in the Munsif Magistrate Court, Vikarabad at relevant time, has deposed in his deposition in categorical terms to the effect that the Police did not take the deceased to the Police Station on any subsequent date after 21.11.1997. Even from the documentary evidence, there is no supportive document to substantiate the charge against the petitioner. In Exs.P-3 and P-4, which are said to be the death notes written by the deceased, which were found in his pocket, though some allegations are made against the petitioner/delinquent officer about suspicion expressed by him, but the recitals as stated in the said documents, by themselves, in the absence of any further corroborative evidence, cannot be given any credence to prove that there was any instigation on the part of the petitioner to the Police, to torture the deceased, nor there was any humiliation by the petitioner, which led the deceased to commit suicide. Except the alleged suspicion expressed by the petitioner in the statement recorded by the Police on 19.11.1997, there is nothing on record to show the involvement of petitioner either in instigating the Police to torture the deceased as alleged, or any humiliation caused by the petitioner to the deceased, which led to his suicide on the intervening night of 26/27.11.1997. From the evidence on record, it is also clear that both the hands of the deceased were tied to his back, and from the said fact, which has come in the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, it is also doubtful whether it is a suicide or homicide. It is well settled law that in the departmental proceedings, unless the findings are recorded based on convincing evidence, no penalty can be imposed on the delinquent/employee. Even assuming that there was any third degree method or torture used by the Police on the deceased, that by itself, is also no ground so as to record any adverse findings so far as the petitioner is concerned. It is also to be noticed in the instant case that the petitioner was on leave from 03.11.1997 to 22.11.1997, and there was a valid explanation for his coming to headquarters on 19.11.1997, on which date, a statement has been recorded from him with regard to the articles missing from his residential quarter. Merely because such statement is recorded from the petitioner, no inference can be drawn to the effect that the Police have tortured the deceased only at the instance of the petitioner. Just because the petitioner is a Judicial officer, no different standards can be applied so as to impose punishment in the disciplinary proceedings, in the absence of any evidence in support of the charge framed against him. 14. Even with regard to the second limb of the charge, there is no evidence at all either to show that the petitioner has harassed the deceased mentally or he compelled him to confess the guilt. On entire scan of evidence, both oral and documentary, there is no material either to show that the petitioner has harassed the deceased or compelled him to confess the guilt. In the absence of any such evidence, the findings of the inquiry officer, which were recorded mainly on the ground that there was no reason for the deceased to take such extreme step, is no valid reason under law to prove the charge framed against the petitioner. From the findings recorded by the inquiry officer, and further, in view of the evidence adduced by the petitioner before the disciplinary authority, we are satisfied that it is a case where the said authorities have recorded findings adverse to the petitioner, inspite of the fact that there is no evidence at all to substantiate the charge framed against him. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that it is a case of no evidence to record any adverse findings against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings, and as such, the order of the disciplinary authority imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement, is unsustainable. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow the writ petition and quash the order, dated 16th of January 2006, passed in G.O.Ms.No.21 Law (LA & J Courts) Department, compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service as a measure of penalty in the disciplinary proceedings. Asmuch as the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation, the respondents are directed to give all consequential benefits, including the arrears of salary, to the petitioner till he attained the age of superannuation. 16. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. _____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J April 2009 _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J ajr