Judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is limited to assessing fairness and legality of the process, not the merits of the findings, particularly for minor punishments.

ORDER :

P.Sam Koshy, J.

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order of punishment passed by the respondent vide ROC.No.1159/2010-VIGILANCE CELL, dated 23.02.2016.

2. Heard Mr. Deepak Bhattacharya, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. S. Lakshmi Kanth, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. V. Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

3. Vide the impugned order, the petitioner who is a Judicial Officer under the combined A.P. State Judicial Services as it then was, and now by allocation, a Judicial Officer of the Telangana State Judiciary has been inflicted with a minor punishment of “reduction to a lower stage in his time scale of pay, by two stages, for two years without cumulative effect”. The said punishment has been imposed after conducting a detailed departmental enquiry wherein the petitioner had participated and availed all the opportunities of hearing that was granted.

4. The petitioner was issued a charge-sheet dated 28.02.2012, which subjected him to disciplinary proceedings, with three charges being leveled against him. The three charges which were leveled against the petitioner are as follows:

“ARTICLES OF CHARGE No.1:

That you Sri M.Rajender, Additional Junior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda district, while working as such, granted bails to the accused in the following three criminal miscellaneous petitions, immediately after the filing of the said petitions in non- bailable offences, though the concerned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed for the same and you granted release orders, despite the fact that the accused did not furnish sureties on the said dated and thus acted in a biased manner, for extraneous consideration, which act of yours if proved or established would amount to grave misconduct and unbecoming of a Judicial Officer withinthe meaning of the Rule 3 of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

ARTICLES OF CHARGE No.2:

That you Sri M.Rajender, Additional Junior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda district, while working as such, dismissed the Crl.M.P.No.6182/2010(Crl.No.194/2010 of PS Halla) under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, filed by Sri K. Venkanna accused in a bailable offence, on 02-09-2010, on the ground that the offence is grave in nature and investigation is still pending but surprisingly on the next day i.e., 03-09-2010, allowed the second bail petition (Crl.M.P.No.6192/2010) of the same accused recording that investigation is almost completed except laying charge sheet that you acted in a biased attitude which act of yours if proved or established would amount to grave misconduct and unbecoming of a Judicial Officer within the meaning of the Rule 3 of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

ARTICLES OF CHARGE No.3:

That you Sri M.Rajender, Additional Junior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda district, while working as such, adjourned the Crl.M.P.No.6234/2010 (Cr.No.194/2010 of PS Halla) filed by Sri K. Ramesh, accused on 07-09-2010 to 09-09-2010 and allowed the petition on 09-09-2010, keeping the accused in custody for two days i.e., on 08-09-2010 and 09-09-2010, though it is a bailable offence registered under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, detriment to the interest of the accused which act of yours if proved or established would amount to grave misconduct and unbecoming of a Judicial Officer within the meaning of the Rule 3 of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.”

5. The enquiry was conducted keeping in view the principles of natural justice and by giving the petitioner all opportunity of defence. After the enquir