AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Sumanth Ravuri, learned counsel representing Mr. Bathula Raj Kiran, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 29.08.2006 passed by the disciplinary authority (respondent No.2), by which the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on her. The petitioner has also assailed the validity of the order dated 19.05.2007 passed by the appellate authority (respondent No.1), by which the appeal preferred by her has been dismissed.
Facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner at the relevant time was working as Head Clerk in the Family Court, Hyderabad. On 26.04.2003 at 12 noon, the petitioner was caught red-handed by Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) authorities, while accepting an illegal gratification of Rs.300/- from one Sri T.Sunil Raj, Advocate, for showing an official favour of not raising any objection to register the divorce petition filed vide S.R.No.4184 of 2003 dated 21.04.2003. On receipt of report from the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 28.04.2003. Thereafter, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner under Rule 20 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (briefly ‘the Rules’ hereinafter). A chargesheet dated 11.12.2003 was served on the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application on 20.09.2004 seeking copies of documents to file written statement of defence. The aforesaid documents were supplied to the petitioner and she was granted time till 07.10.2004 to file written statement.
The petitioner eventually submitted her written statement in the departmental enquiry on 15.11.2005.
Thereafter, the chargesheet was amended on 29.03.2006 and amended chargesheet was served on the petitioner on 03.04.2006.
The petitioner filed a reply to the amended chargesheet on 03.04.2006. The petitioner was permitted to engage a counsel to defend her in the enquiry. The disciplinary authority, in order to prove the charges, examined six witnesses viz., P.W.1 to P.W.6 and marked 17 documents viz., Exs.P.1 to P.17. The petitioner examined four defendants viz., D.1 to D4 and filed written arguments on 10.07.2006. The enquiry officer submitted the report dated 13.07.2006, in which charges leveled against the petitioner were found to be proved.
The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer. A copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner was asked to submit a written representation, which was submitted by her on 18.08.2006. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority, while taking into account the gravity of the nature of charges imposed against the petitioner, awarded a punishment of dismissal from service, commensurate to the misconduct conducted by her. The petitioner, thereupon filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the appellate authority.
None has appeared on behalf of the petitioner whereas Mr. Sumanth Ravuri, learned counsel appears for respondent No.1. 8. We have perused the record.
The disciplinary proceedings have been conducted in conformity with the Rules and there is no infraction of the procedure prescribed under the Rules. The findings recorded by the enquiry officer are based on proper appreciation of evidence on record, which can, by no stretch of imagination, be termed to be arbitrary or based on incomplete evidence. The punishment imposed on the petitioner also is not disproportionate or shocking to the judicious conscience. The orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority are based on material available on record and does not suffer from any infirmity.
For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any ground to interfere with the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as by the appellate authority.
In the result, the Writ Petition fails and the same is, hereby, dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.