M.Rajender vs High Court Of Judicature At Hyderabad

This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the order in ROC.No.164/2012-Vigilance Cell, dated 13.10.2016, as illegal,

arbitrary and bias, and consequently, set aside the same and release all the consequential benefits.

Heard Sri S. Ashok Anand Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

respondent.

It has been contended by the petitioner that he was initially appointed as a Junior Civil Judge on 29.11.2008 and was given posting at Miryalguda as

Additional Junior Civil Judge. The petitioner had further contended that even without subjecting him to any training, he was straightaway given posting

at Miryalguda to work as Additional Junior Civil Judge and, after rendering a considerable length of service, he was sent to training on 04.01.2011 at

Judicial Academy, Secunderabad. The petitioner further contended that he has been discharging his duties to the best satisfaction of his superiors and

everyone concerned. The petitioner had further stated that while he was discharging his duties as Additional Junior Civil Judge, it was alleged that he

had reserved certain cases for pronouncement of judgment and not delivered the judgments with ill-motive and with extraneous considerations. The

disciplinary authority had initiated disciplinary proceedings and issued memorandum of charges on 10.04.2012 and, in all, three Articles of charges

were framed against him. The Articles of charges read as under:

“ARTICLES OF CHARGE No.1:

That you Sri M. Rajender, Additional Junior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District, after having heard the arguments in OS.Nos.247/2005,

295/2004 and 204/2008 reserved them on 15.04.2010, 15.07.2010 and 31.08.2010 respectively for pronouncing judgments and kept with you till

11.02.2011, without dictating judgments in those cases, much against the statutory provision as contemplated under Order XX of Civil Procedure

Code, 1908 (Act.22/2002) which came into effect from 01.07.2002, with an ill motive, for extraneous consideration, which act of yours if proved or

established would amount to grave misconduct and unbecoming of a Judicial Officer within the meaning of the Rule 3 of A.P.C.S. (Conduct) Rules

1964.

ARTICLES OF CHARGE No.2:

That you Sri M. Rajender, Additional Junior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District, is in the habit of re-opening the suits, suo-motu, after they

were reserved for judgment, on many occasions, without recording any reasons thereof for reopening the cases (OS.Nos.50/2003, 207/2005, 28/2008,

353/2007, 502/2005, 193/2007, 545/2006, 302/2006 and 437/2003), contrary to the High Court’s circular instructions, much against the statutory

provision as contemplated under Order XX of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Act. 22/2002) which came into effect from 01.07.2002, dodged the matters

for extraneous consideration, which act of yours if proved or established would amount to grave misconduct and unbecoming of a Judicial Officer

within the meaning of the Rule 3 of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964.

ARTICLES OF CHARGE No.3:

That you Sri M. Rajender, Additional Junior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District, pursuant to the High Court’s proceedings, dated

25.01.2012, requiring you to submit your explanation for not pronouncing judgments in OS.Nos.247/2005, 295/2004 and 204/2008, for a considerable

period after reserving them for pronouncing judgments, you made certain comments in your explanation, dated 10.02.2012 on your colleague officer as

if she had acted in a vindictive manner against you, which is uncalled for and unwarranted and acted in a manner, degrading the image and decorum

of judiciary, which act of yours, if proved or established would amount to grave misconduct, and unbecoming of a judicial officer within the meaning of

Rule 3 of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.â€​

The petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation denying the charges on 28.04.2012 and the disciplinary authority, not being satisfied with the

explanation submitted by the petitioner, had appointed an Enquiry Officer to conduct a detailed enquiry. The Enquiry Officer had conducted an enquiry

and submitted an enquiry report to the disciplinary authority on 29.10.2015, holding that the Articles of charges leveled against the petitioner were held

to be proved. Later, the Enquiry Officer’s report was furnished to the petitioner and the petitioner has submitted his explanation/objections to the

said Enquiry Officer’s report on 14.12.2015. However, the disciplinary authority had mechanically imposed a major penalty of withholding of five

increments with cumulative effect vide orders dated 13.10.2016 without appreciating the fact that imputation of charges were not furnished to the

petitioner as required under the Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991.

Learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Junior Civil Judge and was posted as Additional

Junior Civil Judge at Miryalguda without subjecting him to any formal training and the petitioner had no experience and due to lack of experience, he

had not pronounced the judgments in time. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was not well conversant with the Rules and the

punishment imposed on the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the charges leveled against him. Learned counsel had further submitted that the

punishment should be commensurate with the Articles of charges, but in the instant case, the disciplinary authority has imposed a major penalty of

withholding of five increments with cumulative effect and also the disciplinary authority failed to appreciate that the imputation of charges were not

furnished to the petitioner at the time of furnishing the memorandum of charges. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the disciplinary

authority has failed to appreciate that the first posting of the petitioner was at Miryalguda after being recruited as Junior Civil Judge, therefore,

appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the impugned punishment orders passed by the disciplinary authority.

Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent had contended that the petitioner has not demonstrated as to what prejudice has been caused to the

petitioner by not furnishing the imputation of charges along with memorandum of charges. Standing Counsel had further contended that a perusal of

the memorandum of charges discloses that the basis of charges were clearly discussed giving the details as to what misconduct has been committed

by the petitioner, though the memorandum of charges have not specifically dealt with the imputation of charges, but it was covered in the form of basis

of charges wherein elaborate details were furnished as to under what circumstances the allegations leveled against the petitioner have been made.

Standing Counsel also submitted that the petitioner has not raised about non-furnishing of imputation of charges in the explanation submitted by him

and no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by not furnishing the imputation of charges and, therefore, in the absence of any prejudice, this

Court cannot interfere in the cases of punishments imposed by the disciplinary authority, more so when the charges were held to be proved in the

domestic enquiry.

Standing Counsel had further contended that the respondents have given every opportunity to the petitioner in the departmental enquiry and the

petitioner has not chosen to raise objections before the disciplinary authority about non-furnishing of imputation of charges, but the petitioner has raised

his objections of non-furnishing of imputation of charges before the Enquiry Officer, who is not the competent authority to furnish the imputation of

charges. Standing Counsel also further submitted that if at all the petitioner has any grievance with regard to non-furnishing of the imputation of

charges, the petitioner ought to have approached the disciplinary authority seeking the copies of imputation of charges, but instead of raising the issue

before the disciplinary authority, the petitioner has raised the objection of not furnishing the imputation of charges before the Enquiry Officer,

therefore, looked from any angle, the disciplinary authority has rightly imposed the punishment of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect

for the proven misconduct in the domestic enquiry and, as such, there are no merits and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for respective parties, is of the considered view that the disciplinary

authority has imposed the punishment of withholding of five increments with cumulative effect, which appears to be in excessive, as the petitioner was

given his first posting at Miryalguda on his being appointed as Junior Civil Judge, and he was not subjected to formal training before being inducted as

Additional Junior Civil Judge at Miryalguda. Taking a lenient view, this Court is of the considered view that the punishment of withholding of five

increments with cumulative effect can be modified to that of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect by taking into account the totality of

the case and also the fact that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Civil Judge on 29.11.2008 and was given first posting as Additional Junior Civil

Judge at Miryalguda and also the allegations are pertaining to the year 2010 while the petitioner was discharging his duties as Junior Civil Judge at

Miryalguda and later he was subjected/inducted to training on 04.01.2011 at Judicial Academy, Secunderabad. Therefore, ends of justice would be

met if the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority i.e., withholding of five increments with cumulative effect is modified is to that of stoppage

of two increments with cumulative effect and the same is accordingly modified.

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.