V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.

1. Aggrieved by an order of discharge from probation, a Judicial Officer has come up with the above writ petition.

2. Heard Mr. D.V. Sitharam Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S.Sri Ram, learned Standing Counsel for the Registry.

3. As destiny would have it, the petitioner has been made to play the role of a lawyer, the litigant and a Judge, alternatively in the past more than a decade. After a prolonged legal battle on an issue of principle as to whether a minimum qualifying mark can be prescribed in the viva voce, when the notification did not stipulate so, the petitioner was appointed as a District Judge (Entry Level) by the method of direct recruitment on 24-10-2008. She was initially posted as the III Additional District and Sessions Judge in Kadapa District. From 01-12-2008 to 31-01-2009, she underwent basic judicial training in the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Academy.

4. While working as II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, the petitioner pronounced judgment in a criminal case in S.C.No.310 of 2009 on 12-07-2010, finding two accused guilty of an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, but sentenced both of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years. When the accused filed an appeal and sought enlargement on bail, a Division Bench of this Court directed the Registry by its order dated 02-8-2010, to place the copy of the judgment before the Administrative Committee. The order passed by the Division Bench on 02-8-2010 in Crl.M.P.No.1386 of 2010 in Crl.A.No.905 of 2010 reads as follows:

“When the petitioner/2nd appellant is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC, though minimum sentence prescribed under Sec.302 IPC is death or imprisonment for life and also fine, sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for a period of 10 years by the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad appears to be in total ignorance of law.

We do not see any ground to enlarge the petitioner/ A-2 on bail.

The Registry is directed to place the judgment under appeal before the Administrative Committee.”

5. After discreet enquiries that revealed that the petitioner was not dictating judgments, but having the judgments prepared through her Personal Assistant, the High Court directed the explanation of the petitioner to be called for. Accordingly, a Memo dated 12-8-2010 was issued calling upon the petitioner to offer an explanation both about her judgment in S.C.No.310 of 2009 and about the allegation that she was not dictating judgments. In fact, the Memo dated 12-8-2010 not merely called for an explanation from the petitioner but also called upon the petitioner to send the shorthand note books of the Personal Assistant, along with the draft orders/judgments dictated on that date.

6. The petitioner submitted an explanation on 27-08-2010, enclosing certain documents including the draft judgment in S.C.No.310 of 2009.

7. Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 31-12-2010 and a charge memo was issued on 02-02-2011. The petitioner submitted a written statement of defence on 24-3-2011. Not satisfied with the written statement of defence, the High Court ordered a regular departmental enquiry under Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. A full-fledged enquiry followed and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 28-12-2011.

8. But in the meantime, the cases of all officers who were appointed directly along with the petitioner in October, 2008 by way of direct recruitment and placed on probation, came up for consideration on the administrative side, for confirmation of probation. To enable the Hon’ble Committee of Judges to take a decision, two judgments on the civil side and two judgments on the criminal side of all the probationers were called for. After a perusal of the same, the Administrative Committee of the High Court passed a resolution