Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : G.BIKSHAPATHY
K.Abdul Gafoor - Appellant
Versus
High Court of A.P - Respondent
Decided On : 04-25-96
DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE - UNAUTHORIZED RECEIPT OF MONEY - TEMPORARY MISAPPROPRIATION - CHARGE NOT ESTABLISHED - PUNISHMENT OF DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE - SET ASIDE - REMITTED TO DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY FOR PASSING APPROPRIATE ORDER OF PUNISHMENT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Bench clerk in the Court of Munsif Magistrate, was charged with receiving an amount of Rs. 925/- from the Station House Officer, Madhavaram Police Station, being the fine amount in 15 S. T. C. cases and with receiving Rs. 1,270/- from Sri Rahmathullah Khan, P. C. 1536 from Peddathumbalam Police Station being the fine amount in Petty Case Nos. 319/85 to 445/1985. The Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner was guilty of receiving the amount unauthorisedly but exonerated him of the second charge. The 2nd respondent, however, disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the second charge and held the petitioner guilty of the same. Accordingly, he passed an order dismissing the petitioner from service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the procedure adopted by the 2nd respondent in directing the Enquiry Officer to prove Charge No. 2 properly and conduct a re-enquiry was illegal and arbitrary. The court also found that the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the first charge were not based on any acceptable evidence and that the 2nd respondent had erred in disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the second charge. The court further found that the punishment of dismissal from service was grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct.
Issues: 1. Whether the procedure adopted by the 2nd respondent in directing the Enquiry Officer to prove Charge No. 2 properly and conduct a re-enquiry was legal and valid? 2. Whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the first charge were based on acceptable evidence? 3. Whether the 2nd respondent erred in disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the second charge? 4. Whether the punishment of dismissal from service was grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the procedure adopted by the 2nd respondent in directing the Enquiry Officer to prove Charge No. 2 properly and conduct a re-enquiry was illegal and arbitrary. The court reasoned that the 2nd respondent had virtually converted himself as de facto enquiry officer and that he had tried to fill up the gaps in evidence. 2. The court held that the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the first charge were not based on any acceptable evidence. The court reasoned that the Enquiry Officer had found fault with the procedure adopted by the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Yemmiganur and also the attitude of the police, but that these findings were not supported by the evidence. 3. The court held that the 2nd respondent had erred in disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the second charge. The court reasoned that the Enquiry Officer had found that the petitioner was not guilty of the second charge and that there was no evidence to support the 2nd respondent's finding that the petitioner was guilty of the second charge. 4. The court held that the punishment of dismissal from service was grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. The court reasoned that the petitioner had rendered 19 years of service without any remarks and that the misconduct in question was not serious enough to warrant dismissal from service.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of punishment dated: 3-6-1988 passed by the 2nd respondent, as confirmed by the 1st respondent dated: 7-2-1992. The court remitted the matter to the 2nd respondent for passing appropriate order of punishment within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
( 1 ) THE Writ Petition is filed for quashing the order of dismissal passed by the 2nd respondent dated: 3-6-1988 as confirmed by the 1st respondent dated 7-2-1992.
( 2 ) THE facts relevant to the case are that the petitioner was working as Bench clerk No. 2 in Criminal Section in the Court of the Munsif Magistrate, yemmiganoor. He worked in the said capacity from 7-12-1983 to 7-12-1986. Thereafter he was transferred to the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Atmakur. While so, he was kept under suspension pending enquiry by the 2nd respondent and thereafter appointed the Subordinate Judge, Adoni as an enquiry Officer by proceedings dated 12-8-1987. The Enquiry Officer framed two charges against the petitioner. I will refer to the details of the charges at a later stage. Four witnesses were examined in support of the charges while one witness was examined on behalf of the employee. The Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner was guilty of receiving the amount unauthorisedly. But, however in respect of 2nd charge he exonerated the petitioner. The 2nd respondent who is the disciplinary authority after considering the Enquiry report issued proceedings dated 18-12-1987 directing the Enquiry Officer again to conduct the enquiry and amend the 2nd charge suitably. Thereafter the enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry for the 2nd time as per the guidelines issued by the 2nd respondent. However, in his additional report he confirmed his finding on the second charge finding that there is no additional evidence warranting the other conclusion. The second respondent again perused the said report and while concurring the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer on the first charge differed from the finding of the Enquiry Officer on the second charge and he held the 2nd charge as proved. Accordingly, by proceedings dated 3-6-1988 he passed the orders dismissing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 9934/88 and this Court by orders dated 26-3-1991 disposed of the Writ Petition directing the petitioner to file the appeal under C. C. C. A. Rules,there upon the petitioner filed the appeal before the 2nd (sic. 1st) respondent. However by orders dated 7-2-1992, the appeal was dismissed. Thus, the petitioner challenged the order of dismissal passed by the 2nd respondent as confirmed by the 1st respondent in this Writ Petition. ,
( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the 2nd respondent in directing the Enquiry Officer to rtconduct the enquiry by amending and framing the second charge is wholly. Illegal and arbitrary. He. also submits that the findings of the Enquiry Officer on first charge is not based on any evidence and hence the findings are perverse. It is also the contention of the learned counsel that the 2nd respondent gravely erred in disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the second charge and that it is a case of bias Writ at large. Finally submits that even assuming that the charges are proved, the punishment imposed on the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate and highly unconscionable. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner is perfectly in accordance with the C. C. C. A. Rules and that the 2nd respondent is entitled to direct the Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry if the enquiry Officer failed to consider the relevant material on record and to frame the charges in a correct fashion. He also submits that the charges as proved against the petitioner are serious in nature and therefore the punishment as imposed on the petitioner is quite legal and valid. There is no illegality nor irregularity in the proceedings of the 2nd respondent or in the order of the appellate authority. Hence, he submits that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
( 4 ) BEFORE dealing with the matter, it is necessary to extract the charges as framed aga
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
