HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.12941 of 2007 Between: K.Venkata Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Late Venkata Subba Rao … Petitioner and High Court of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Registrar (Administration), High Court Buildings, Hyderabad And others … Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.12941 of 2007 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble VVSRJ) Petitioner joined Judicial Ministerial Service in the District Unit Nellore as Record Assistant in June 1984. Subsequently he was promoted as Junior Assistant in September 1986. In June 2005, third respondent herein was posted as Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nellore. At that time, petitioner was working as Junior Assistant in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Kovur. Learned District Judge by proceedings dated 17.12.2005 transferred petitioner to the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Sulurpet. Petitioner joined new station on 25.12.2005. He then allegedly applied medical leave due to neurological problems. Off and on petitioner worked at Sulurpet but from 27.12.2005 to 29.4.2006 he availed casual leave and medical leave. Even after expiry of medical leave in June 2006, he did not report to duty. Therefore District Judge by proceedings dated 28.6.2006 while appointing I Additional District Judge, Nellore, as Enquiry Officer, initiated disciplinary proceedings and framed following two charges. ARTICLE No.1 That you Sri K.V.Srinivasa Rao, Junior Assistant, Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Venkatagiri, applied leave from 27.3.2006 to 29.4.2006 and extended leave upto 28.6.2006 on flimsy grounds and also with medical certificates which are not proper, only after your transfer to Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Venkatagiri with a view to disobey the orders of the undersigned which act committed by you if proved or established would amount to dereliction of duties of Rule-3(b) (e)(f)(vi) and (i) of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964 (i.e., negligence, lack of integrity, lack of devotion to duty and having unbecoming conduct of a government servant). ARTICLE No.2 That you Sri K.V.Srinivasa Rao, Junior Assistant, Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Venkatagiri, applied leave from 27.3.2006 to 29.4.2006 and extended leave upto 28.6.2006 on flimsy grounds and also with medical certificates which are not proper, only after your transfer to Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Venkatagiri and thereby wilfully absented from duty after expiry of joining time which act if proved or established would amount to misbehaviour towards the orders of the undersigned and violation of fundamental rule 108. Enquiry Officer examined witnesses for Department as well as petitioner and marked Exs.A.1 to A.73 and Ex.B.1. After considering the evidence, Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 02.2.2007. Disciplinary Authority, namely, District Judge then issued final show cause notice dated 02.6.2007 calling upon petitioner to submit explanation on or before 11.6.2007. Needless to mention, enquiry report was enclosed to the said notice. Petitioner then addressed a letter dated 09.6.2007. In this he informed that enquiry report is not legible, that corrections appearing in the report are not initialled by Enquiry Officer and that he is unable to read contents of report. He therefore requested for a legible copy to submit explanation. Request was not considered and District Judge passed orders on 13.6.2007 imposing punishment of compulsory retirement. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed instant writ petition seeking Writ of Certiorari. Learned District Judge, Nellore, is also impleaded in his personal capacity attributing bias. Insofar as this aspect of the matter is concerned, petitioner in his affidavit alleged as under. I respectfully submit that during the course of enquiry and in my deposition I have clearly brought about the animosity developed by Sri N.R.L. Nageswara Rao who is acting as a disciplinary authority in view of the long history behind their relationship. In my deposition I have traced out the entire relationship with Sri Nageshwar Rao starting from a marriage proposal mooted by the learned judge to marry his sister and which proposal was not acceptable to me and my family members. I submit that his sister was having some neurological disorder and therefore was not a normal person and hence my elders advised against marrying that girl. It is submitted that at that point of time, i.e., in 1983, Sri Nageshwar Rao was working as Junior Civil Judge at Nellore and I was working under him. Thus I could not dare to say no to his proposal but I was compelled to say no as my family members were not interested. This was the starting point of developing a grudge against me by Sri Nageshwar Rao. Due to neurological problem his sister could not be married and she continues to live with her parents. I respectfully submit that consequent to my refusal of his marriage proposal I was transferred out of the place and therefore I was not within the available distance of Sri Nageshwar Rao at that point of time. He had a god sent opportunity in the year 1988-89 when he was posted as Senior Civil Judge at Kavali on his promotion when I was working at Kavali. Utilizing power of his administrative control and supervision over me, he has initiated false proceedings against me resulting in imposing punishment of deferment of 2 annual grave increments with cumulative effect for two years. At that time I was consoled by my well-wishers to restrain myself in taking any adverse action. Therefore I was hoping against the hope that it would satisfy his temper and would be sparing me in future at least. It is appropriate to notice that Sri Nageshwar Rao was suspended when he was working at Kavali and he was removed from service in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him but he was reinstated in pursuance to a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. I submit that to my misfortune on his promotion as Principal District and Sessions Judge, he was posted as Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nellore and thereby throwing me again into his jaws. In my deposition I have narrated all the story till the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. The said deposition is not denied except for making wild suggestions on irrelevant issues. My allegation of his personal bias remains unopposed. However, the disciplinary authority became curious and very furious on seeing my deposition and he decided on throwing me out of employment. On more than one occasion he has expressed his desire to throw me out of employment by any means. I was called into his chamber several occasions and warned me of dire consequences and to take revenge by the act done by me in the year 1983 not to marry his sister. In substance petitioner’s case is that the impugned order, besides other vitiating factors, is influenced by personal bias of learned District Judge as petitioner declined proposal to marry sister of District Judge in 1983. On this ground, District Judge also filed separate counter making general denial that, “I deny every allegation of marriage proposals of my sister and none of my sisters are of marriageable age with the petitioner”. Detailed counter affidavit is also filed by District Judge in his official capacity denying various allegations made against Disciplinary Enquiry and personally against him. Learned Counsel for petitioner raised four contentions. First, petitioner is denied an adequate and reasonable opportunity to submit effective explanation to final show cause notice dated 02.6.2007. In substantiation of this, it is submitted that after receiving final show cause notice dated 02.6.2007, petitioner by letter dated 09.6.2007 requested learned District Judge for supplying legible copy of enquiry report and that denying the same, the impugned order was passed. Secondly reliance placed by learned District Judge with the past conduct of petitioner is illegal and unfair. Thirdly during one stage of disciplinary proceedings learned District Judge addressed High Court of Andhra Pradesh requesting permission to exclude from being Disciplinary Authority but still proceeded to pass disciplinary orders leading to reasonable apprehension of bias. Lastly it is submitted that punishment imposed for absence for a period of one month on medical leave, is shockingly disproportionate to misconduct alleged. All these contentions have been refuted by learned Standing Counsel for respondents. In view of the impugned order, allegedly based on personal bias, it is not necessary to go deep into submissions 2, 3 and 4, as summarised above. As noticed, grievance of petitioner inter alia is that he was not given adequate opportunity for submitting an effective explanation to the final show cause notice. Therefore point for consideration is whether petitioner is denied such an opportunity, which is provided under Rule 21(2) of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereafter called, the Rules). Rule 21(2) reads thus: Rule 21. Action on the inquiry report:- (2) The disciplinary authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the report of the inquiry, if any, held by the disciplinary authority or where the disciplinary authority is not the inquiring authority a copy of the report of the inquiring authority together with its own tentative reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of inquiring authority on any article of charge to the Government servant who shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his written representation of submission to the disciplinary authority within fifteen days, irrespective of whether the report is favorable or not to the Government servant. Two things are important for strict compliance with Rule 21(2) of the Rules. These are: supplying and forwarding a copy of enquiry report and giving at least fifteen (15) days time to the delinquent officer who submits explanation to report. Show cause notice dated 02.6.2007 curiously gives only nine (9) days time to petitioner. It is rather doubtful whether a Junior Assistant can submit an effective explanation to enquiry report in which large number of documentary evidence is considered by Enquiry Officer. In addition to this, it would certainly take sometime when final show cause notice enumerates particulars of enquiries from 1986 onwards. Unless and until someone verifies all this, effective explanation cannot be submitted. Secondly petitioner has annexed enquiry report, which he received along with final show cause notice. We are afraid that his allegations with regard to said report being illegible and contains corrections at certain places, cannot be denied. Enquiry report is in twenty (20) pages. At pages 5, 7, 8 and 10 to 16, there are additions, interpolations and extrapolations, which have not been authenticated by initials of Enquiry Officer. Petitioner was therefore justified in requesting for a legible copy. When petitioner was not granted fifteen (15) days time as required under Rule 21(2) of the Rules, in our considered opinion, learned Judge ought to have granted some more time and ought to have supplied a legible copy of enquiry report, which is the basis for impugned order. The principle that justice should not only be done but seem to have been done, equally applies to quasi-judicial authorities. When serious allegations of personal bias are made against Disciplinary Authority and based on such allegations Disciplinary Authority himself at one point of time sought permission of High Court to exclude him from disciplinary proceedings, things would have been better if learned District Judge supplies documents which petitioner wanted and then passes an order. Petitioner was given time till 11.06.2006 to submit explanation and by that date Disciplinary Authority received letter dated 09.6.2007 sent by petitioner requesting for a legible copy of the order. The same was denied, which in our considered opinion, is unfair and violates principles of natural justice. Petitioner was not given adequate and reasonable opportunity to defend himself at the final stages of enquiry. For this reason, we overrule objection of learned Standing Counsel that alternate remedy by way of appeal under Rule 33 of the Rules is a bar to this writ petition. For the above reasons, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to learned District Judge, Nellore, with a direction to furnish a neat and legible copy of enquiry report to petitioner enabling him to submit explanation. After receiving explanation, learned District Judge shall pass appropriate order without in any manner being influenced by the impugned order. This exercise may be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition, with the above observations and directions, shall stand disposed of. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ___________________ (G.CHANDRAIAH,J) June 11, 2008 YS