IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) , THE DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM and HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16394 of 2006 Between: V. Satyaveni, W/o. Sri Padmanabha Rao, Aged about 52 years, R/o.H.No.1-112, Kothur, Gooty, Anantapur. … Petitioner And 1. The High Court of A.P., rep. by its Registrar (Vigilance) High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. 2. The Government of A.P., rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad. … Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring G.O.Ms.No.95 Law (LA & J SC.F) Department dated 13-06-2006 as amended in G.O.Ms.No.112, Law (LA & J SC.F) Department dated 28-07-2006 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. G. Vidyasagar Counsel for respondent No.1: Mr. D.V. Sitharama Murthy Counsel for respondent No.2: The court made the following Order: (Per Sri R. Subhash Reddy, J) The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus to declare orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.95 Law (LA & J SC.F) Department dated 13-06-2006, as amended by G.O.Ms.No.112, Law (LA & J SC.F) Department dated 28-07-2006 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner joined in Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service as Munsif Magistrate on 05-10-1985 and was promoted as Senior Civil Judge in November, 1996. She was further promoted as Additional District Judge in April, 2003 and was posted as V Additional District Judge (FTC) Ongole, Prakasam District. While she was working as I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, an anonymous complaint was sent to the District Judge, Warangal, marking a copy to the High Court complaining that the petitioner, having heard and reserved certain cases, did not deliver judgments and reopened the said cases, for extraneous considerations. Based on the said complaint, the first respondent-High Court, vide proceedings dated 10-02-2003, called for a report from the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Warangal. The District Judge, Warangal, submitted the report dated 18-03-2003. In view of the said report, comments of the petitioner were called for and on receipt of her comments, the first respondent-High Court ordered for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against her. In the disciplinary proceedings, five charges were framed, communicated to the petitioner and her explanation was called for. Upon considering her explanation, a regular departmental enquiry was ordered against her and one of the learned Judges of this court was nominated as the enquiry officer. After the enquiry had commenced, another complaint was received from one Sri N. Ramesh, the father of the accused in S.C.No.192/01, against the petitioner alleging that though the petitioner, as VI Additional District Judge (FTC) Prakasam at Ongole, delivered the judgment convicting the accused on 21-06-2004, but did not supply a copy of the judgment to the accused, curtailing his right to file an appeal against the said judgment. On such complaint, a report from the District Judge, Prakasam and the remarks of the petitioner were called for and upon considering the same, the High Court decided to initiate further disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. In the said proceedings, a lone charge was framed and was communicated to her, calling for her explanation. On considering her explanation, further regular departmental enquiry was ordered and entrusted to the same learned Judge of this court, who was appointed earlier to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner. 3. With reference to the first complaint, pursuant to which five charges were framed, P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined on behalf of the presenting officer and Exs.A.1 to A.88 were marked. The petitioner was examined as D.W.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.6 were marked on her behalf. With reference to the second complaint, on behalf of the presenting officer, Pws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.3 were marked. The learned enquiry officer submitted his reports in the two enquiries separately. With reference to the first enquiry, the learned enquiry officer has recorded findings to the effect that all the five articles of charges framed against the petitioner were partly proved and the lone charge framed against her in the second enquiry was proved. The reports of the learned enquiry officer were placed before the administrative committee of the High Court. The learned members of the administrative committee, having invited the comments on the findings recorded in the enquiry report, resolved to recommend to impose the penalty of reduction in the rank, on the petitioner. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Full Court, which, in its meeting held on 27-10-2005, approved the minutes of the administrative committee and the High Court recommended to the second respondent-Government to impose the penalty of reduction in the rank, on the petitioner. 4. On the recommendations of the High Court, which were communicated vide proceedings dated 16-11-2005, at first instance, Government issued orders i n G.O.Ms.No.95 Law (LA & J SC.F) Department dated 13-06-2006 and further amended the same vide orders in G.O.Ms.No.112, Law (LA & J SC.F) Department dated 28-07- 2006. The aforesaid orders imposing punishment on the petitioner, pursuant to conclusion of the enquiry in the disciplinary proceedings, are assailed by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 5. Heard Sri G. Vidaysagar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri D.V. Sitharama Murthy, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-High Court and perused the material on record. 6. It has been submitted by Sri G. Vidyasagar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that no valid reasons have been recorded as contemplated under Rule 9 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short ‘the CCCA Rules’) to impose major penalty of reversion of the petitioner to lower rank. It is submitted that the penalty as provided under Rule 9 of the CCCA Rules can be imposed only for good and sufficient reasons. It is further submitted that in spite of the valid defence of the petitioner in response to the charges framed against her, the learned enquiry officer has arrived at the conclusions, in absence of any evidence in support of the charges. Lastly, it is contended by the learned counsel that in view of the nature of charges framed against the petitioner, which are held proved partly in the first enquiry and the only charge proved in the second enquiry, the major penalty imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate to the gravity of charges. 7. On the other hand, it is contended by Sri D.V. Sitharama Murthy, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent-High Court, that the charges which are held proved in the enquiry are grave in nature and the enquiry is conducted by giving opportunity to the petitioner at every stage in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Rule 20 of the CCCA Rules. It is submitted that the conclusions arrived at by the learned enquiry officer are based on oral and documentary evidence, recorded during the course of enquiry, and as such, there are no grounds at all to interfere with the penalty imposed on the petitioner. 8. In view of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent-High Court, it is appropriate to refer to the charges framed against the petitioner, defence put forth by her and the conclusions of the learned enquiry officer, so as to examine whether such conclusions are based on any evidence collected during the enquiry proceedings or not. It is well settled that the scope of judicial review against the orders passed pursuant to departmental enquiry, in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is limited only to examine whether conclusions arrived at by the enquiry officer are based on any evidence or not. In the enquiry proceedings which are initiated at first instance, in the first charge, it is alleged that the petitioner, having heard and reserved cases numbering about eight on various dates, reopened the said cases subsequently for extraneous considerations and the same would amount to dereliction in discharge of judicial functions, grave misconduct, judicial dishonesty and unbecoming of a judicial officer within the meaning of Rule 3 of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. In the disciplinary proceedings, on behalf of the presenting officer, nine witnesses were examined. The bench clerk of I Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Warangal, the Chief Ministerial Officer in the Court of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, the Steno-Typist, Junior Assistant, Record Assistant, Attender of the said Court, Senior Assistant in the District Court and the Bench Clerk in the said Court were examined to prove the charges. With reference to the first charge, the defence of the petitioner was that as her father had fallen ill in August, 2002 and as she suffered injuries in the accident met by her, she could not pronounce the judgments and later reopened the cases. But, the learned enquiry officer was pleased to observe that there was no evidence at all to prove that her father fell ill during the relevant period of time and the same was not substantiated by any acceptable evidence. Even with regard to the defence that she suffered injuries in the accident met by her, the learned enquiry officer has held that no evidence was produced by the petitioner to prove that she suffered injuries in the accident at the relevant time when the cases covered by charge No.1 were reserved and later reopened. In absence of any satisfactory evidence, while holding that there was no reasonable explanation for not pronouncing the judgments, the learned enquiry officer has held that the first charge was proved to that extent. 9. So far as charge No.2 is concerned, the allegation was that there was inordinate delay in pronouncing judgments in four cases, viz. SCS.No.33 of 2002, I.A.No.564 in O.S.No.820 of 2001, O.S.No.168 of 2000 and O.S.No.346 of 1997. With reference to the said charge, the petitioner admitted the delay in pronouncing the judgments, but pleaded that the same was on account of the accident, which she suffered in December, 2002. However, the learned enquiry officer held that there was no impediment for her to pronounce the judgments before December, 2002 as she had already heard arguments. In that context, the said charge is held proved. So far as charges 3 and 4 are concerned, they relate to not pronouncing judgments in the cases numbering 23, 20 cases covered by charge No.3 and 3 cases covered by charge No.4. With reference to the said charges, the explanation of the petitioner was that the Bench Clerk by name T. Promodrao, P.W.9, did not place the files before her and thus she could not pronounce the judgments. The said Bench Clerk was examined on behalf of the presenting officer as P.W.9, from whose deposition it is clear that he has placed the files which were reserved for judgment before the presiding officer. Analyzing the evidence of P.W.9, P.W.3 and P.W.4, the learned enquiry officer has held that the petitioner-delinquent officer knew about the cases which were reserved for judgment and for the reasons best known to her she opened some cases suo motu and in some cases pronounced judgments after abnormal delay. While holding so, a finding was recorded that reasons offered by the petitioner with regard to the said charges are not convincing. So far as charge No.5 is concerned, it relates to earlier punishment of censure suffered by the petitioner in the departmental enquiry. 10. The second enquiry proceedings relate to the period when the petitioner was posted as V Additional District Judge (FTC) Ongole, Prakasam District. The said proceedings were initiated against her based on a complaint sent by the father of the accused in S.C.No.192 of 2001 stating that though his son was convicted in the said case, he was not supplied with a copy of the judgment in the said case. With reference to the said charge, on behalf of the presenting officer, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A.3 were marked. The petitioner has got herself examined as D.W.1. The defence of the petitioner was that she pronounced judgment in S.C.No.192 of 2001 on 21-06-2004 and handed over the draft judgment to the typist on that day itself and after a few days the typist brought the said draft judgment to her since some of the pages were not corrected; therefore she kept the draft judgment with her for correction and could not carry out corrections immediately due to pressure of work and she returned the said judgment, after carrying out the corrections, to the typist on 02-07-2004. Precisely, the defence of the petitioner was that a copy of the judgment could not be delivered to the accused because some corrections were required to be carried out in the draft judgment. While referring to the oral and documentary evidence in the enquiry, the learned enquiry officer has held that there was no consistency in the version of the petitioner-delinquent officer. It was observed in the enquiry report that the initial explanation of the petitioner was that she handed over the draft judgment to the typist on the date of pronouncement of the judgment itself and five days thereafter the typist brought the draft judgment to her on the ground that she did not sign on some pages and thereafter the said judgment was misplaced and she could trace it only on 02-07-2004, on which date she handed over the same to the typist for fair copying. It was observed in the enquiry report that the typist who was examined as P.W.1 has categorically stated that the petitioner had given him the draft judgment only on 02-07-2004 for fair-copying and the same is also corroborated by P.W.2, who is none other than the Head Clerk of the Court. The report of the District Judge, who made a surprise visit to the court of the petitioner- delinquent officer, corroborates the version of P.W.1. In view of the evidence on record, the learned enquiry officer has held that the petitioner retained the draft judgment with her till 02-07-2004 and handed over the same to P.W.1 for fair-copying, in the afternoon, on 02-07-2004. In that context, it was held that the said conduct of the petitioner is contrary to the provision under Section 363 of Cr.P.C read with Rule 72 of Criminal Rules of Practice. 11. Though it is argued by Sri G. Vidyasagar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the findings recorded by the learned enquiry officer are based on no evidence, but, a perusal of the enquiry report of the learned enquiry officer and looking at the findings and the evidence on record, the said argument of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. The learned enquiry officer conducted the enquiry apropos the charges framed against the petitioner, the defence of the petitioner and, on appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, arrived at correct conclusion. Having regard to the evidence on record, the conclusion arrived at by the learned enquiry officer cannot be said to be based on no evidence. By the impugned order in the writ petition, the petitioner was reverted from the post of District Judge Grade-II to that of Senior Civil Judge with the last ranking in the seniority list of the Senior Civil Judges. Although it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the penalty imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate to the gravity of charges, but as much as charges are serious and grave, it cannot be said that the penalty imposed on proven misconduct of the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of charges. It is well settled that, while exercising judicial review in matters relating to disciplinary proceedings, this court cannot exercise jurisdiction as an appellate authority. Having regard to the evidence on record, we are satisfied that the conclusions arrived at by the learned enquiry officer are in conformity with the oral and documentary evidence on record. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State Bank of India v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde[1], has held as under: “ Before we proceed further, we may observe at this stage that it is unfortunate that the High Court has acted as an Appellate Authority despite the consistent view taken by this Court that the High Court and the Tribunal while exercising the judicial review do not act as an Appellate Authority: “ Its jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined to correct errors of law or procedural error, if any, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of principles of natural justice. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication on merit by reappreciating the evidence as an Appellate Authority.” 12. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no valid grounds to interfere with the impugned orders, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed, however, in the circumstances without any order as to costs. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J. _________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. April ,2009 MRR [1] (2006) 7 SCC 212