IMPORTANT POINT
In a departmental enquiry, charges based on mere suspicion without legal evidence cannot sustain disciplinary action, and the burden of proof lies with the prosecution.

ORDER:

(Per Hon’ble Justice Sujoy Paul)

This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 12.09.2016, whereby punishment of removal from service was inflicted on the petitioner. The challenge is also made to the order dated 18.11.2017, whereby the review application preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

Factual Matrix:

2. Draped in brevity, the relevant facts for adjudication of this matter are that the petitioner joined the service in judicial department at Vizianagaram District on 26.09.1982. The petitioner was selected as Court Master and Personal Secretary to the Judges in the High Court on 17.02.1995. From the month of May, 1995, the petitioner was attached with the office of Judges of High Court. However, from 17.05.1999, he was attached as Personal Secretary to another Judge, who was portfolio Judge of Vishakapatnam District. In the month of May, 2011, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Registrar, but under the direction of the said Judge, he continued to perform his duties as Personal Secretary.

3. The case of the petitioner is that under the direction of the portfolio Judge of Vishakapatnam District, he went to Vishakapatnam District Court and handed over a pen-drive in a sealed cover containing question papers and answer key of written examination for the posts of junior assistant, field assistant, typist and stenographer.

4. The written examinations for the said posts were conducted on 22.10.2011 and 23.10.2011. The petitioner being the Personal Secretary to the portfolio Judge accompanied him on 22.10.2011 and 23.10.2011 to Vishakapatnam. On 23.10.2011 at around 07:00 PM, the Central Nazir and Computer Operator of the Vishakapatnam District Court telephoned and informed the petitioner that they are unable to open the answer key and upon the directions of the learned District Judge requested the petitioner to come to the District Court. The petitioner went to the District Court after securing laptop of his nephew’s son and converted the answer key from Microsoft Office 2010 version to Microsoft Office 2003 version, which was available in the District Court’s computers.

5. The results of the said written examinations were declared in the month of December, 2011. In January, 2012, personal interviews were conducted. After lapse of 5½ months, on 31.03.2012, the District Judge appears to have made a complaint to the High Court that he had suspicion that the petitioner had leaked out the question papers of written examination, which were held on 22.10.2011 and 23.10.2011.

6. The charge sheet dated 19.07.2013 containing seven charges was served on the petitioner after a lapse of two years. The petitioner filed his reply on 16.09.2013. The Disciplinary Authority was dissatisfied with the said reply and appointed an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer after recording the evidence submitted his report running into 90 pages. The said report was supplied to the petitioner along with the show-cause notice. In turn, the petitioner filed his written representation against the report of the Enquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority by the impugned order dated 12.09.2016 imposed the punishment of removal from service, which was unsuccessfully assailed by the petitioner by filing a review application.

Contentions of the petitioner:

7. Sri D.V. Sitharam Murthy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, referred Rule 17(2) of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Service Rules, 1975 (for short, Rules of 1975) whereby the procedure prescribed in Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short, CCA Rules) were borrowed for the purpose of conducting departmental enquiry. Learned Senior Counsel has taken pains to contend that procedural part of the Departmental Enquiry was not in consonance with the principles of natural justice and the CCA Rules. As per Rule 20 (12)(a) of CCA Rules, after the case of Disciplinary Authority is closed, the delinquent employee gets an