IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.19676 of 2006 Between: K.Suresh Babu, S/o.K.Indumouleswara Rao, Junior Civil Judge's Court, Gudur, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Nellore. 2 The III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore. 3 Sri.G.Deena Babu S/o.late David Atmakur, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings Enquiry No.1/2006 dated 7.7.2006, ordering fresh enquiry and appointing the 2nd respondent herein as fresh Enquiry Authority to enquire into the allegations levelled against the petitioner in spite of an enquiry has already been held in accordance with A.P. Civil Services ( Classiﬁcation, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991 and the Enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Authority, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Rule 21 of the A.P. Civil Services ( Classiﬁcation, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991 and set aside the said order and direct the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders basing on the record of enquiry including the report of the Enquiry Authority and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.M.BHASKARA LAKSHMI (SC FOR APHC) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.19676 of 2006 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao, J) The petitioner is working as Personal Assistant in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Gudur, Nellore District. He ﬁled the instant Writ Petition aggrieved by the orders of the ﬁrst respondent dated 07.07.2006. Be it noted, by the said impugned order, the ﬁrst respondent disagreed with the ﬁndings of the Enquiry Oﬃcer in the matter of disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner and ordered fresh enquiry duly appointing III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, to conduct fresh enquiry in accordance with Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classiﬁcation, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (CCA Rules, for brevity). The disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into two charges. These related to the dereliction of duty by the petitioner as Personal Assistant to learned Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur. The indictment against the petitioner is that he is not prompt in attending to the residence of the Oﬃcer for taking dictation, as a result of which, judgments could not be pronounced in time, and that the petitioner misplaced record pertaining to Calendar Case No.85 of 2002. The Enquiry Oﬃcer submitted a report dated 29.04.2006. He recorded the ﬁnding as not guilty on both the charges. On receiving the said report, the ﬁrst respondent came to the conclusion that Enquiry Oﬃcer did not properly appreciate the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, and that the approach of the Enquiry Oﬃcer is not correct. Accordingly, he ordered fresh enquiry. Be it noted, before doing so, a copy of the enquiry report was communicated to the petitioner, but he did not submit any explanation. A counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled justifying the action of the District Judge. As the counter aﬃdavit – as in the case of writ aﬃdavit, mainly deals with the merits of the case, we are not inclined to sum up the contents thereof. Be that as it is, learned Counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance on sub rule (2) of Rule 21 of CCA Rules and submits that when the disciplinary authority disagrees with exoneration report of the Enquiry Oﬃcer, a show cause notice is mandatory before ordering fresh enquiry. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for High Court submits that when the case falls under sub rule (1) of Rule 21 of CCA Rules, no notice is required, and it is always open to the disciplinary authority to order fresh enquiry in the event of disagreement with the ﬁndings of the Enquiry Oﬃcer. Reliance is placed on an unreported judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (VVSRJ) is a member, in N.Sambaiah v District and Sessions Judge, Warangal (W.P.No.4933 of 2008, dated 02.04.2008), in support of the contention. A perusal of sub rules (1) and (2) of Rules 21 of CCA Rules would show that both of them contemplate two diﬀerent situations. Sub rule (1) of Rule 21 empowers the disciplinary authority to remit the case to the enquiring authority for further enquiry and report. Interpreting this, this Court in N.Sambaiah (supra) laid down that, “the power to remit the matter for a further enquiry and report includes the power to issue the charge sheet containing the same charges or additional charges which may be as a result of recasting of the charges”. However, for good reasons, we are not convinced that the case on hand does not fall within the ambit of Rule 21(1) of CCA Rules. It is case which falls under Rule 21(2) of CCA Rules, for the simplest reason that after issuing impugned orders, the ﬁrst respondent communicated the copy of the enquiry report dated 29.04.2006 to the petitioner, but he was not called upon to explain as to why a fresh enquiry should not be ordered by disciplinary authority. In all probability, the petitioner might have been under the impression that as the report of the Enquiry Oﬃcer was in his favour, there was no necessity to submit explanation. If only he had been put on notice that the disciplinary authority desires to appoint a fresh Enquiry Oﬃcer, he would have given explanation with reference to the enquiry report already communicated to him. On this limited ground, the impugned order cannot be sustained. This view of ours also draws support from Mathura Prasad v Union of India[1], whereunder their Lordships laid down as under. …The disciplinary authority merely sent a demi- oﬃcial letter to the enquiry oﬃcer. He did not pass any order. The ﬁle was sent back to him for a clear remark on every point of charges framed against the appellant. It could not have been either an order passed in terms of sub- rule (2) of Rule 10 or sub-rule (3) thereof. The disciplinary authority was a statutory authority. He was, therefore, bound to act within the four corners of the statute. Procedures relating to conduct of a disciplinary proceedings have been laid down by the Rules. He was bound to follow the same scrupulously… The enquiry oﬃcer in his ﬁrst report might not have speciﬁcally recorded his ﬁndings with reference to each of the charges leveled against the appellant but he arrived at a ﬁnding on analysis of the materials on record. If he was to diﬀer with the said ﬁndings on the basis of any fresh materials, he was enjoined with a duty to grant another opportunity of hearing to the appellant. (emphasis supplied) We, however, hasten to add that we do not intend to lay down any principle that even in a case falling under Rule 21(1) of CCA Rules, disciplinary authority should give a show cause notice. Any such interpretation thereof would certainly go against plain language of Rule 21(1) of CCA Rules. If the case falls under Rule 21(2) of CCA Rules as contemplated therein, the disciplinary authority is bound to issue a notice requiring the Government servant to submit written representation to the disciplinary authority within ﬁfteen days of receipt of the enquiry report. In this case, as noticed supra, no notice was issued to the petitioner requiring him to submit his representation with regard to the contemplated fresh enquiry by the disciplinary authority. For that reason, the impugned order is unsustainable. In the result, for the above reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the ﬁrst respondent to proceed further in accordance with the observations made hereinabove. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) _________________ (G.CHANDRAIAH, J) 30.07.2008 Note: LR copy to be marked. B/o. vs To 1 The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Nellore. 2 The III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore. 3 2CCs to 4 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR} [1] (2007) 1 SCC 437