ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice V.V.S. Rao, J) The petitioner is working as Personal Assistant in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Gudur, Nellore District. He filed the instant Writ Petition aggrieved by the orders of the first respondent dated 07.07.2006. Be it noted, by the said impugned order, the first respondent disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in the matter of disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner and ordered fresh enquiry duly appointing III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, to conduct fresh enquiry in accordance with Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (CCA Rules, for brevity).

2. The disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into two charges. These related to the dereliction of duty by the petitioner as Personal Assistant to learned Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur. The indictment against the petitioner is that he is not prompt in attending to the residence of the Officer for taking dictation, as a result of which, judgments could not be pronounced in time, and that the petitioner misplaced record pertaining to Calendar Case No.85 of 2002. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report dated 29.04.2006. He recorded the finding as not guilty on both the charges. On receiving the said report, the first respondent came to the conclusion that Enquiry Officer did not properly appreciate the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, and that the approach of the Enquiry Officer is not correct. Accordingly, he ordered fresh enquiry. Be it noted, before doing so, a copy of the enquiry report was communicated to the petitioner, but he did not submit any explanation.

3. A counter affidavit is filed justifying the action of the District Judge. As the counter affidavit - as in the case of writ affidavit, mainly deals with the merits of the case, we are not inclined to sum up the contents thereof. Be that as it is, learned Counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance on sub rule (2) of Rule 21 of CCA Rules and submits that when the disciplinary authority disagrees with exoneration report of the Enquiry Officer, a show cause notice is mandatory before ordering fresh enquiry. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for High Court submits that when the case falls under sub rule (1) of Rule 21 of CCA Rules, no notice is required, and it is always open to the disciplinary authority to order fresh enquiry in the event of disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Reliance is placed on an unreported judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (VVSRJ) is a member, in N.Sambaiah v District and Sessions Judge, Warangal (W.P.No.4933 of 2008, dated 02.04.2008), in support of the contention.

4. A perusal of sub rules (1) and (2) of Rules 21 of CCA Rules would show that both of them contemplate two different situations. Sub rule (1) of Rule 21 empowers the disciplinary authority to remit the case to the enquiring authority for further enquiry and report. Interpreting this, this Court in N. Sambaiah (supra) laid down that, "the power to remit the matter for a further enquiry and report includes the power to issue the charge sheet containing the same charges or additional charges which may be as a result of recasting of the charges". However, for good reasons, we are not convinced that the case on hand does not fall within the ambit of Rule 21(1) of CCA Rules. It is case which falls under Rule 21(2) of CCA Rules, for the simplest reason that after issuing impugned orders, the first respondent communicated the copy of the enquiry report dated 29.04.2006 to the petitioner, but he was not called upon to explain as to why a fresh enquiry should not be ordered by disciplinary authority. In all probability, the petitioner might have been under the impression that as the report of the Enquiry Officer was in his favour, there was no necessity to submi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document