Point of Law : Service Law - Punishment of Compulsory Retirement - Illegal gratification - An order passed imposing a punishment on an employee consequent upon a disciplinary/departmental enquiry in violation of the rules/regulations/statutory provisions governing such enquiries should not be set aside automatically.

ORDER :

Abhinand Kumar Shavili High, J.

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring G.O.Ms.No.61 dt.27-12-2019 issued by the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and Consequently the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent in Roc.Nos.3021/2016 and 146/2017 Vigilance Cell dt.30-12-2019 are also illegal and unjust and therefore the same are liable to be quashed and also to declare that the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated into service with all consequential benefits.

2. Heard Sri M. Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.Nalin Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent.

3. It has been contended by the petitioner that he was initially appointed as a Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate on 06-05-1994, after undergoing regular selection process, in pursuance to a Notification issued by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission. The petitioner has further contended that after rendering considerable length of service, he was promoted as Senior Civil Judge during the year 2005 and further promoted as the District and Sessions Judge in the month of September, 2015.

4. The petitioner has further contended that he has been discharging his duties to the best satisfaction of his superiors and everyone concerned. While he was working as Additional District Judge at Jagtial in Karimnagar District, the Members of the Bar Association, more particularly, the President of the Jagtial Bar Association had made a complaint against him alleging that he is not giving respect to the President of Bar Association and he is collecting illegal gratification for passing favourable orders by utilizing the services of one Srikanth, Office Subordinate, as a mediator for striking deals with parties and advocates; and that based upon those allegations, he was placed under suspension on 18-08-2017 by the High Court.

5. It has been further contended by the petitioner that a charge memo on 15-12-2017 was served on him and was asked to appear before the enquiry officer; that the so-called complaint filed by the President, Jagtial Bar Association, on 05-11-2016 was not accompanied by any sworn affidavit and the Standing Orders of the High Court were not followed before initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and the disciplinary authority ought not to have initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.

6. In all, four Articles of Charges were framed which read as follows:

“ARTICLES OF CHARGE NO.1:-

That you Sri P.Ranjan Kumar, former II Additional District Judge, Jagtial, Karimnagar District, now under suspension, while working as such, during the relevant period,

(i) Maintained a set of advocates and more particularly Sri Omprakash, Advocate and through whom you used to collect illegal gratification for passing favourable orders, irrespective of the nature of the case and unless and until you receives money, you would not be pronouncing orders/judgments, and

(ii) also used the services of Sri Srikanth, Office Subordinate of your Court as a mediator for striking deals with parties/advocates and collected illegal gratification through him, and

(iii) used to say openly in the Bar Association, Jagtial that “everyone in other departments is earning money and so why not you and myself” and also used to say “live and let live” and would be very liberal and encourage such practices, and

thus, acted in such a biased manner against the judicial ethics and gave a wrong signal to the legal fraternity, which a judicial officer ought not to have done, which act of yours if proved or established would amount to grave misconduct, unbecoming of a judicial officer within the meaning of Rule 3 of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964.

ARTICLES OF CHARGE NO.2:-

While so, in two Sessions Cases viz., S.C.No.207 of 2013 & S.C.No.292 of 20