Sanjay Kumar, J.

1. The petitioner, a Junior Civil Judge, was visited with the minor penalty of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect under proceedings dated 11.11.2014 of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh. By way of this writ petition, he prays for quashing of the said proceedings and for all consequential benefits.

2. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by the High Court, vide order dated 08.11.2011, under Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for brevity, the Rules of 1991). Be it noted that, in terms of Rule 19 of the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules, 2007, the Rules of 1991 are made applicable to members of the judicial service.

3. A single charge was framed against the petitioner that while working as a Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Addateegala, East Godavari District, he issued a non-bailable warrant against A4 in C.C.No.16 of 2006 on 14.09.2009 without verifying the record, though there was a note on the docket that summons was to be issued to A4, signed the non-bailable warrant on 30.09.2009, and kept A4 in unwarranted and illegal custody from 06.10.2009 to 14.10.2009, thereby acting in a most negligent and callous manner, which act of his, if proved or established, amounted to grave misconduct unbecoming of a judicial officer within the meaning of Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

4. Dissatisfied with his explanation to the charge, the High Court instituted a regular departmental inquiry against him, under proceedings dated 09.02.2012. The District Judge (Enquiries) was appointed as the inquiry officer. Upon completion of the inquiry, he submitted report dated 29.04.2014 holding the charge against the petitioner duly proved. But, the High Court, upon consideration of the said report and the material on record, decided to impose a minor penalty specified under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1991 and accordingly issued the impugned proceedings dated 11.11.2014, directing stoppage of two annual grade increments of the petitioner without cumulative effect.

5. In the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, the petitioner raised various issues touching upon the merits of the case. It is however fairly well settled that this Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, would not sit as an appellate authority in matters of this nature. Only the decision making process is subjected to judicial review and not the decision itself, unless warranted by any special circumstances. No such special circumstances are made out in the case on hand and that is perhaps the reason why Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel representing Sri S.Ashok Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, did not choose to advance arguments on the merits of the proved misconduct of the petitioner. This Court therefore does not propose to examine the merits of the misconduct alleged against the petitioner and the finding recorded thereon. Suffice it to state that the petitioner did not deny that he signed the non-bailable warrant but blamed the subordinate staff in connection therewith and sought exoneration. The challenge of Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel, to the impugned proceedings is essentially on the ground that the procedure prescribed under Rule 21 of the Rules of 1991 was not followed. He would contend that, in consequence thereof, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner stands vitiated.

6. The Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court filed a counter-affidavit stating that imposition of a minor penalty, despite initiation of disciplinary proceedings under Rule 20 of the Rules of 1991 for imposing a major penalty, is valid in law as it is duly authorized by the Rules of 1991. He stated that the petitioner was subsequently furnished a copy of the inquiry report in November, 2014. The Registrar further stated