HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 2013 OF 2008 Between: Mr. D. Ramakrishna Rao S/o Radha Krishna Murthy ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The District Judge, Guntur, and one another .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner declaring the order dated 30.4.2005 as confirmed by the Appellate Authority by proceedings dated 25.11.2006 imposing the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect, as illegal and arbitrary and the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner including ordering for second enquiry as illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently set aside the punishment. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the judicial service as Attender on 2.7.2000 and he was posted to Munsif Magistrate Court, Macharla. It is stated that while working at the residence of the Officer, the petitioner shown his reluctance in cleaning of the latrines, washing of the floors since he belongs to Brahmin Community. The said reluctance was not liked by the then Presiding Officer Sri K. Chidananda. Subsequently, the petitioner was transferred to the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Vinukonda by orders dated 23.4.2001 and joined the duty on 30.4.2001. While he was working as attender in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Vinukonda, the District Judge, Guntur issued proceedings dated 21.9.2001 alleging six irregularities and called upon to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against the petitioner and for which, he submitted his explanation dated 8.10.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued with memorandum of charges dated 17.10.2001 and charges framed against him are as under: “ARTICLE NO. I : That you Sri D. Rama Krishna Rao, while functioning as Attender in the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Macherla during the period March, 2001 had beat the son of the Presiding Officer and caused small abrasion on the forehead of the son of the Presiding Officer and thereby exhibited gross misbehaviour in the discharge of your official duties as Attender which is unbecoming on your part as Government servant and thereby committed misconduct. ARTICLE NO. II: That you Sri D. Rama Krishna Rao, while functioning as Attender in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Macherla on 19.3.2001 had refused to attend the duties entrusted to you and deliberately failed to attend the household works entrusted by the Presiding Officer and thereby exhibited gross negligence and dereliction of duties in the discharge of your official duties as Attender and thereby committed MISCONDUCT. ARTICLE NO. III: That you Sri D. Rama Krishna Rao, while functioning as Attender in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Macherla on 20.3.2001 absented from the night duty at the residence of the Presiding Officer which is meant to guard public property i.e., case records and books and caused lot of inconvenience to the lawful functioning of the Presiding Officer and thereby exhibited gross negligence and dereliction of duties in the discharge of your official duties as Attender and thereby committed misconduct. ARTICLE NO. IV: That you Sri D. Rama Krishna Rao, while functioning as Attender in the Court of Junior Civil Judge’s Court Macherla on 21.3.2001 were posted as Court Duty and your behaviour is also not good and threatening the witnesses and thereby exhibited gross misbehaviour and dereliction of duties in the discharge of your official duties as Attender and thereby committed MISCONDUCT. ARTICLE NO. V: That you Sri D. Rama Krishna Rao, while functioning as Attender in the court of the Junior Civil Judge, Macharla, misbehaved with the staff members of the Court and caused inconvenience to the functioning of the office and you thereby exhibited gross misbehaviour and dereliction of duties in the discharge of your official duties as Attender and thereby committed misconduct. ARTICLE NO. VI: That you Sri D. Rama Krishna Rao, while functioning as Attender in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Macherla during the period March, 2001 number of complains were received against you that your behaviour is not good and thereby you have exhibited gross misbehaviour and dereliction of duties in the discharge of your official duties as attender and thereby committed misonduct.” It is stated that denying the charges, the petitioner submitted his written statement dated 5.11.2001 and thereafter, Sri Y. Vijay Kumar, Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet was appointed as an Enquiry Officer by the Hon’ble District Judge, Guntur vide proceedings dated 28.11.2001 to conduct departmental enquiry against the petitioner and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 18.5.2002 and he found that the charges 2 and 4 are proved and the articles of charges 1,3,5 and 6 are not proved. It is stated that vide proceedings dated 29.9.2003 the District Judge, Guntur found that the reasons given by the Enquiry Officer are not satisfactorily especially on charges 1,3,5 and 6, and remanded the matter to Sri Y. Vijay Kumar, Enquiry Officer-cum- Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet to examine some more witnesses and send a fresh report within a month and a copy of the said letter was also communicated to the petitioner and thereafter, the Enquiry Officer changed and Smt. P Kamala Devi, Junior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet was appointed as an Enquiry Officer vide proceedings dated 13.5.2004 and she submitted her report dated 12.8.2004 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges 1,2,3 and 4 and that charges 5 and 6 are held not proved. The disciplinary authority issued proceedings dated 28.2.2005 and for that the petitioner also submitted his detailed representation dated 15.3.2005. Inspite of that, the District Judge by proceedings dated 28.4.2005 imposed the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority rejected the appeal by proceedings dated 25.11.2006 and the same was communicated to the petitioner on 4.12.2006. Aggrieved by the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect as confirmed by the appellate authority, the present Writ Petition has been filed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the punishment imposed on the delinquent employee is disproportionate and excessive to the misconduct. He also contended that the findings of the second enquiry officer are nothing but a review of the findings arrived at by the first enquiry officer and there is no procedure for review of the findings of the enquiry officer by another enquiry officer and even otherwise, the findings of the second enquiry officer are irrational and arbitrary and same should not have been taken into consideration. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that there is no infirmity in the procedure adopted and the District Judge and the Disciplinary authority got power to remand the matter to the enquiry officer for further enquiry and such action of the learned District Judge directing examination of additional witness cannot be faulted with and the punishment imposed is extremely lenient and cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charges and therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the material made available on record. The point that arises for consideration is whether there is any infirmity with regard to procedure adopted by the disciplinary authority. This Court cannot sit as an appellate authority and examine the adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence and the same is to be exercised by the disciplinary authority. This Court, in case where the punishment imposed is highly excessive and there are procedural irregularities while conducting the enquiry and the principles of natural justice have not been followed, may invoke the doctrine of proportionality. As seen from the record, the Appellate Authority has made an observation that there is no reason to differ with the conclusions arrived at by the enquiry officer and the learned District Judge and that the disciplinary authority has got power to remand the case to the enquiry officer for further enquiry and such action of the learned District Judge directing examination of additional witness cannot be faulted with. Therefore, we are of the view that the jurisdiction of this Court is rather limited and its power to interfere with the disciplinary matters is circumscribed by well-known factors. The punishment imposed, in our considered view, is not excessive. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition fails and accordingly the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _________________________ G. CHANDRAIAH ,J DATE: 2.07.2010 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.