R. Siva Rama Krishna, Khamamm District v. The Registrar, Hyd And Another

[ 33e3 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI WRIT PETITION NO: 15586 OF 2009 Between:

R. Siva Rama Krishna, S/o. Suryanarcyana, Aged about 58 years, Rl/o. H.No.9-8-32, Brahmin, Bazar, Khammam, Khammam District. ...PETITlONER AND

1. The Registra(Management) High Court of A.P. Hyderabad.

2. The District and Sessions Judge, Khammam District at Khammam. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order vide Proceedings Order Dis.No.4208/ADM/DCK, dated 24-6-2006 on the file of the 2nd respondent by which the petitioner was dismissed from service as confirmed in Appeal vide order in D(D) A.No.02l2O07.C4 (con.), dated 31-3-2007 on the file of the 1"t respondent and quash the same as the same are illegal, contrary to law and violative of Art. 14 of the constitution of lndia apart from contrary to the provisions of APCS (CCA) Rules 199'1 and consequently set aside the same Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU Counsel for the Respondent No.1:-- Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: SRI SUMANTH RAVURI, REPRESENTING FOR BATHULA RAJ KIRAN (SC FOR TSHC) The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADI{E AND THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMARJUKANTI WRIT PETITION No.l5586 of 2009 QBDER:. (p". ,he Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe) None for the petitioner.

Mr. Sumanth Ravuri, learned counsel appears for Mr. Bathula Raj Kiran, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order of dismissal dated 24.06.2006 passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the order dated 31.03.2007 passed by the appellate authority by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed.

3.

Facts giving rise to filing of this petition briefly stated are that the petitionerjoined the service in the year 1975 and was promoted as Senior Assistant. At the relevant time, the petitioner was posted as Deputy Nazir in Junior Civil Judge's Court at Yellandu of Khammam District. Two charge memos dated 07.01.2004 were issued to the petitioner containing 10 and 2 charges respectively. The substance of the charges .;.ir_m.

rc,

CJ & JAK, J wP.No. t5586 of 2009a against the petitioner was that the petitioner had collected the amounts under various heads and had deposited the same belatedly and had used the public funds for his own use. 4.

The petitioner submitted a reply on 03.03.2004 to the aforesaid charges. The petitioner in the aforesaid reply admitted the charges. However, he pleaded that variation in the amount was only to the extent of Rs.300/- to Rs.700/- only. The aforesaid explanation was not found to be satisfactory. Thereupon, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, was appointed as an enquiry officer. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 25.04.2005 in which charges levelled against the petitioner were found to be duly proved.

5. A copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner and a show cause notice dated 15.07.2005 was issued asking him to show cause as to why the punishment of dismissal from service be not imposed on him. The petitioner submitted a reply in which he pleaded that lesser punishment be imposed as the petitioner is suffering from T.B. and Diabetes and at the fag end of service. However, the

CJ & JAK. J WP-No.15586 of2O?A against the petitioner can neither be held to be in violation of the rules nor can the findings recorded by the enquiry officer be said to be perverse based on the evidence

10. The gravamen of the charges levelled against the petitioner pertains to breach of trust and utilization of public money for personal use. Therefore, penalty of dismissal from service cannot be said to be excessive or disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the petitioner I l. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any merit in the Writ Petition.

12. The Writ Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending,, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

SD/. N.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT EEG'STRAR //TRUE COPY// v SECTION OFFICER \ To, One CC to Sri Srinivasa Rao fvladiraju' Advoc-ate- [Of U-Cl 5'# Ed i6 sli e;iiirru naj rirJn (sc'for rsH c) [oPUCl

3. Two CD CoPies TJ GJ s

I HIGH COURT DATED:2210112024 I H T-- ST 4r€ ( o() 15 FIB 2t!24 ,-t.s F-'\-i'cts gO ,l * *

ORDER

a-'

WP.No.15586 of 2009 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

o*o'

q

// CJ & JAK, J wP.No.Is5a6 ot 2OO9 -.-7:

disciplinary authority by taking into account the gravity of the charges levelled against the petitioner by an order dated 24.06.2006 imposed penalty of dismissal from service.

6. The petitioner thereupon preferred an appeal. The appellate authority by an order dated 31.03.2007 dismissed the appeal. In the aforesaid factual background, this Writ Petition has been filed.

7.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has supported the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the order passed by the appellate authority. 8.

We have perused the record.

9. Two charge memos were issued to the petitioner. The petitioner in reply to the aforesaid charge memos and in his explanation admitted the charges levelled against him. The , I petitioner submitted that since the discrepancy in the amount is only to the extent of Rs.300/- to Rs.700/-, lesser punishment be imposed. The charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved by the evidence of P.Ws.l and 2, who have been examined during the course of the enquiry. The enquiry