The court confirmed disciplinary action for negligence in duty leading to a judgment debtor's escape but modified the punishment from five to three incremental with cumulative effect due to retirement.

ORDER :

T.C.D. Sekhar, J.

The present writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings in ROC No.417/2005, C.4(Con.), dated 25.11.2006, issued by the 1^st respondent, confirming the order dated 22.02.2005, passed by the 2^nd respondent through which a punishment of withholding five increments with cumulative effect was imposed against the petitioner.

2. It is a case of the petitioner that, while he was working as Field Assistant in the court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, the learned Judge passed order dated 04.11.2003, in EP No.9 of 2003, committing the judgment debtor therein to civil prison for a period of three (03) months along with cash batta of Rs.3,500/-. The committal warrant was prepared and the judgment debtor was entrusted to the petitioner and one Sri N.Nagabhushanam, the Process Server to be handed over at Central Prison, Kadapa, at 6.20 pm. It is further stated that, as the jail authorities would not take the judgment debtor beyond 5 pm, the petitioner along with the Process Server took the judgment debtor to the court premises to guard him. It is further case of the petitioner that, during the intervening night of 04.11.2003 and 05.11.2003, the judgment debtor escaped from their custody, when they allowed him to answer nature’s call. Accordingly, a report dated 05.11.2003, was submitted by the petitioner to the Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, informing about the said incident.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner was kept under suspension vide proceedings dated 07.11.2003. Subsequently, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, by framing Article of Charge stating that, the petitioner is responsible in allowing the judgment debtor in EP No.9 of 2003, to escape from his custody and thereby he had committed grave irregularity in discharge of his duty, and asked the petitioner to submit explanation. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted explanation denying the charges framed against him. The District Judge, Kadapa, directed to conduct a regular departmental enquiry against the petitioner and appointed the Junior Civil Judge, Nandalur, as enquiry officer to submit report, inasmuch as the explanation offered by the petitioner was not satisfactory. Further, after conducting enquiry against the petitioner, the enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of the charge leveled against him and submitted a report dated 27.03.2004 to the District Judge. The 2^nd respondent enclosing a copy of the report, dated 27.03.2004, issued show cause notice to the petitioner calling for explanation as to why he should not be dismissed from service through proceedings dated 30.06.2004. To the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted explanation dated nil.07.2004, denying the charge leveled against him and requested to drop further action in the matter. After considering the case of the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent by order dated 03.12.2004, imposed punishment of withholding of five increments with cumulative effect. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representation dated 19.01.2005 to the 2^nd respondent, with a request to sanction full salary and allowances for the period from 10.11.2003 to 09.12.2004, including annual increments. The 2^nd respondent, by treating the period of suspension already undergone by the petitioner as leave on loss of pay, issued proceedings dated 22.02.2005. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner preferred appeal before the 1^st respondent, and upon consideration, the 1^st respondent by order dated 25.11.2006, dismissed the same, by confirming the punishment of withholding the five increments with cumulative effect and by setting aside the order of the 2^nd respondent in treating the period of suspension of the petition