IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTH THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 20464 OF 2009 Between: Sadhana Venkaiah Petitioner And The Disciplinary Authority-cum-Principal District Judge, Nellore Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No .20464 OF 2009 ORDER: (per Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorari calling for records pertaining to the charge framed against the petitioner on 17.03.2009 by the Disciplinary Authority based on the complaint of petitioner’s wife for the alleged misconduct of the petitioner and to quash the same. 2. The petitioner married to one T.Sarojini on 01.05.1987 at Sullurpet as per the Hindu rites and customs. They were blessed with two female children. The petitioner was appointed as a Dalayat in Judicial Department and he was subjected to suspension and dismissal from service for more than 9 years in view of the sentence of imprisonment passed against the petitioner by the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Special Mobile Court, Nellore, by judgment dated 22.4.2002 in C.C.No.192 of 2000, which was filed on the complaint of his wife under Section 498-A of IPC. Thereupon, the petitioner preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.85 of 2002 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge’s Court, Nellore and by judgment dated 4.4.2006 the appellate court acquitted him. In view of his acquittal, he was reinstated into service. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he was acquitted by the Criminal Court, the Department is initiating disciplinary proceedings against him in pursuance of a preliminary enquiry. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after acquittal of the petitioner honourably by the Criminal Court, initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him by the Department is not at all sustainable. 4. It is to be noted that the Departmental proceedings and the Criminal proceedings stand on a different footing. In the Departmental proceedings, disciplinary authority will initiate proceedings for the alleged misconduct by framing the charges, whereas in the criminal proceedings, standard of proof is required to come to a just conclusion. 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Disciplinary authority initiated departmental proceedings after a lapse of 14 years of the alleged misconduct, on a complaint lodged by the petitioner’s wife and therefore, the same is not sustainable under law. 6. We are not impressed upon the contention put forth by the learned counsel since the charge made under Article No.1 by the Disciplinary Authority is grave in nature. It would be relevant to extract Article No.1 and it reads as under: “That you, Sri S.Venkaiah, Junior Assistant, Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Gudur, Nellore District, while working in the court of Junior Civil Judge, Sullurpet as Typist married Smt.T.Sarojini and that marriage was solemnized on 01.05.1987 at Sullurpet of Nellore District as per Hindu rites and during the period of your working in Sullurpet, both of you blessed with elder daughter viz. Sai Nischala inJune,1990 and you developed an illegal intimacy with one Prasanna Kumari of Nellore Town in the year 1992 and also you used to come to smt. T.Sarojini very rarely and both of you blessed with second daughter viz., Lavanya in year 1997 and also you used to come to Smt. T.Sarojini and stay for two or three days and during that time of your stay you harassed her on the account that she is not beautiful and you scold and beat her and took away money from her and also you and one Prasanna Kumari begotten two children viz. S.Viraja and Prajeeph and you filed divorce case twice against Smt.T.Sarojini and Smt.T.Sarojini succeeded in the above said both divorce cases and the above said acts committed by you if proved or established would amount to Grave Misconduct and also Bigamy as per Rules contemplated under Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.” 7. Coming to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Disciplinary Authority conducted preliminary enquiry without affording an opportunity to the petitioner, it is needless to mention that the preliminary enquiry will be conducted by a fact finding committee and providing an opportunity to the petitioner does not arise. But as per the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,1991 (for short “C.C.A.Rules”), opportunity will be given to the delinquent officer at the time of regular enquiry. 8. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the writ petition so as to prevent the authority from conducting departmental enquiry against the petitioner. 9. Hence, the writ petition is misconceived and the same is hereby dismissed. However, the respondent shall give an opportunity to the petitioner to put-forth his case in accordance with C.C.A. Rules. Further, the respondent shall complete the enquiry, as expeditiously as possible, provided the petitioner cooperates with the Authority. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _______________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J 23.09.2009 Stp