( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioner, who was serving at the relevant point of time as deputy Nazir in the Court of the Special judicial First Class Magistrate (Excise), karimnagar, has assailed the validity of the disciplinary action taken by the 2nd respondent, the District and Sessions Judge, karimnagar, dated 01-08-1996 and order of the 1st respondent High Court of Andhra pradesh, confirming the above order of the learned District and Sessions Judge.

( 2 ) FEW relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this writ petition are to be noted briefly as under: the petitioner while working as deputy Nazir in the above Court was kept under suspension by order dated 27-12-1995 and subsequently the learned. District and Sessions judge, the disciplinary authority, appointed the Additional Munsif Magistrate, karimnagar as Enquiry Officer to hold a regular departmental enquiry after framing the charges. Accordingly, the enquiry Officer framed a charge on 04-03-1996, which is as follows:"charge:- That you Sri V. Ra}a mallaiah, working as Deputy Nazir, court of Munsif Magistrate, Manthani (Now under suspension) have failed to submit entire case properties in s. C. No. 644 of 1994, on the file of the court of Sessions, Karimnagar concerned in P. R. C. No. 36/1994, on the file of the Court of the JMFC, manthani, by submitting only one item through Lr. Dis. No. 3047, dated 22-12-1995 and failed to submit other three items though they were received and entered in Crl. Reg. No. 15/94 at sl. No. 129/94 as Item Nos. 1 to 3 by the JMFC, Manthani. You were also warned to be careful in future in procs. in Dis. No. 6634/ PR. 72/adm/ dck/95, dated 31-7-1995, when the case property was not submitted in s. C. No. 785/94. Again for the second time when you failed to submit the case property in s. C. No. 751/94 by 21-8-1995, an amount of Rs. 100. 00 was ordered to be deducted from your salary and the same was deducted from your salary in Procs. in Dis. N0. 7276/pr. 93/adm/dck/95, dt. 25-8-1995. On these two occasions it had no desired effect on you. You are hereby directed to show-cause as to why suitable disciplinary action should not be taken against you on the above said charge. You are hereby required to put in any written statement you may desire to submit in your defence by 11-3-1996. You are being furnished herewith the questionnaire in Form No. 1 to be filled and re-submitted by 11-3-1996, in case, if you failed to put in your written statement by 11-3-1996, the enquiry will be proceeded with on the basis of that you have no defence to offer".

( 3 ) THE Enquiry Officer on consideration of the evidence adduced in the course of enquiry recorded the finding that the charge framed against the petitioner was proved. Accordingly, he submitted his report to the learned District and Sessions judge. The learned District and Sessions judge; on reappreciation of the evidence and after due application of mind, passed the impugned order dated 01-08-1996, imposing the penalty of denial of. one increment with cumulative effect and treating the suspension period" of the petitioner as not on duty. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned District and sessions Judge dated 01-08-1996 the petitioner preferred an appeal to the High court of Andhra Pradesh on administration side. The High Court by its order dated 16-07-1997 dismissed the appeal. Hence this writ petition assailing the orders of the district and Sessions Judge as well as the high Court.

( 4 ) SRI T. Suryakaran Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned orders, firstly, would contend that admittedly the enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer by framing charge in terms of the provisions of the Andhra pradesh Civil Services (Classification, control and Appeal) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 1963 Rules ), which were repealed by the Andhra pradesh Civil Services (Classification, control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 1991 R