(Prayer: 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 pleased to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ calling for the record in Dis.No.34/3/2018/Admn/Staff dated 04.06.2018 in departmental proceedings in DE Nos. 4/2016, 6/2016, 2/2017 and 03/2017 dated 04.06.2018 of the Respondent and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and unjust and consequently direct the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner into service with all consequential service benefits

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to fix and early date of hearing of WP. 10669/2019 in the interest of justice)

T.C.D. Sekhar, J.

1. The present writ petition is filed questioning order dated 04.06.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent whereunder the petitioner was awarded the punishment of removal from service under Rule 9 (ix) of AP Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Office Subordinate on 06.11.2014. While, he was working at Senior Civil Judge Court, Penukonda, a complaint was received against the petitioner from seven (07) Advocate Clerks and three (03) members of the general public that he had been demanding money from them. Apart from the same, there was another complaint that the petitioner was attending the Court in a drunken state and was abusing advocates in filthy language. In those circumstances, the petitioner was referred to Government Hospital, Penukonda for Medical Examination on 14.05.2015 and the Civil Assistant Surgeon issued Certificate dated 14.05.2015 stating that he had consumed Alcohol. In pursuance of the same, a complaint dt.15.05.2015 was forwarded by the Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda to the District Judge, Ananthapuram, who inturn forwarded the same to the head of Vigilance Cell-cum-I Additional District Judge, Anantapuram for enquiry by proceedings dt.16.05.2015, and after conducting enquiry, a report dt.12.01.2016 was submitted after examining the witnesses.

3. Based on the said report a show cause notice was issued, directing the petitioner to submit explanation as to why his probation should not be terminated. To which, the petitioner submitted explanation dt.09.03.2016 denying the allegations made in the show cause notice. Thereafter, not satisfying with the explanation offered by the petitioner, he was issued with Memo No.1920/2016/DE, dt.21.03.2016 with articles of charges namely.

                  Charge:1 That the petitioner while working as office subordinate in Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda demanded money from litigant public and used to threaten the parties.

                  After enquiring into the same, charge No.1 was dropped as not proved.

                  Charge:2 That the petitioner while working as Office Subordinate in Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Penukonda, he attended the duty in drunken state on 14.05.2015 and he abused an Advocate in filthy language and he was referred to Govt. Hospital, Penukonda for medical examination on the same day. The Civil Assistant Surgeon examined the petitioner and issued medical certificate dt.14.05.2015 that the petitioner has consumed Alcohol. Thereby, the above act of the petitioner, if proved would amount to misconduct and unbecoming of a Govt. servant within the meaning of Rule (3) of AP Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

4. The petitioner submitted explanation dt.16.04.2016 denying the charges leveled against him. Thereafter, Enquiry Officer was appointed by proceedings dt.18.06.2016 to conduct enquiry into the charges. Upon enquiry the charge No.1 leveled against the petitioner was not proved and insofar as the charge No.2 is concerned, the Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner had attended the Court in a drunken condition and gave finding that the said charge is proved.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that he was sent on deputation to Junior Civil Judge, Kalyadurg in the year 2016. While working there, the petitioner was sent to Medical Examination on 28.07.2016, as the petitioner was under intoxication condition, while he was in duty.

6. Upon examination of the petitioner, Medical Officer reported on 29.07.2016 along with enclosures that the petitioner was under the influence of Alcohol. Based on the said report the petitioner was placed under suspension by proceedings dt.06.08.2016 and subsequently he was issued charge Memo dt.27.10.2016 stating that the petitioner used to come to Court in a drunken condition and also caused annoyance to the family members of the Presiding Officers at Kalyandurg. The Presiding officer lodged a complaint and the same was registered in Crime No.95/2016, on the file of Kalyandurg Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 510 IPC. Further, the petitioner was also issued charge Memo dt.18.02.2017 by the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadiri that the petitioner was attending duties in drunken state. Likewise there are several instances of misconduct of the petitioner was leveled against him including sending of anonymous letter to influence the disciplinary authority.

7. The petitioner submitted explanation dt.12.11.2016 and 21.02.2017 denying the charges. After considering the case of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent by impugned order dt.04.06.2018 awarded the punishment of removal from service, which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

8. Heard Ms.K.Yamini Nikitha, learned counsel representing Sri J.Sudheer, counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.S.P.Sudheer Kumar, learned Standing for respondents.

9. The counsel for the petitioner would strenuously contend that the 2nd respondent has not followed the procedure contemplated under law, while imposing major punishment of removal of service, inasmuch as the Enquiry Officer did not examine the wife of PW-1, the Presiding Officer, Junior Civil Judge, Penukonda. She would further contend that the petitioner used to take medicines for illness of liver and due to which the breath smells of Alcohol.

10. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents, that the petitioner had attending the duties in a drunken state and there are many instances of such nature happened in various Courts at Penukonda, Kalyandurg and Kadiri. He would further submit that the petitioner also used to misconduct himself and used to give reckless answers to the family members of the Presiding Officers and thereby, the same would amount to unbecoming of a Government Servant as per the Rule (3) of AP Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

11. A perusal of the record would show that the petitioner was sent to medical examination as he attended the night guard duty at residential quarters of Presiding Officer on 28.07.2016 in a heavy drunken state and when asked he gave reckless answers and denied that he was under intoxication. Thereafter, the Presiding Officer summoned Sub Inspector, Kalyandurg and sent the petitioner to Medical Examination in Government Community Health Centre, Kalyandurg. The Medical Officer issued certificate stating that the petitioner had consumed Alcohol and the level of Alcohol is 40 ml., per 100 mg., (stage-1). Further, the petitioner also annoyed with the family members of the Presiding Officer at residential quarters and the same is evident on perusal of record.

12. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner was attending the duty in a drunken state, while he was working in Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Penukonda on 14.05.2015 and further he was abusing an Advocate in filthy language. Upon noticing the same, the petitioner was sent to Medical Examination and the Civil Assistant Surgeon examined the petitioner and gave certificate dt.14.05.2015 stating that the petitioner has consumed Alcohol. Further, on perusal of the evidences of PW-1, Junior Civil Judge, Kadiri, PW-3 Sub Inspector of Police, Kadigiri and PW-4 Civil Assistant Surgeon would go to show that the petitioner was under the influence of Alcohol, while attending the duties and giving reckless answers by mis-conducting himself with the family members of the Presiding Officer, while he was posted on guard duty.

13. Though, the petitioner submitted that he used to take medicines for his illness of liver and the same smells of Alcohol, the said contention of the petitioner is liable to be rejected inasmuch as the doctors, who have examined him have issued certificates that the petitioner is under the influence of Alcohol. Further, breath analyzed test was conducted by PW-3, the Sub- Inspector of Police would show that the petitioner had consumed Alcohol, which resulted in that, he has consumed alcohol and the reading is shown as 63%.

14. Apart from the same, as already noted supra, the petitioner was sent to Medical Examination in Government Community Health Centre, Kalyandurg. After examination, the Medical Officer issued certificate stating that the petitioner had consumed Alcohol and the level of Alcohol is 40 ml., per 100 mg., (stage-1). The above incidents would show the conduct of the petitioner that he used to attend the duties under the influence of Alcohol and abusing Advocates and used to give reckless answers to the family members of the Presiding Officers. Though, the petitioner denied the charges leveled against him, nothing has been elicited to disprove the evidence on record.

15. The above evidence coupled with the certificates issued by the Medical Officers would prove that the petitioner was under the influence of alcohol while attending the duty in the Courts and also while attending guard duty at the residential quarters of the Presiding Officers. Having considered the case on hand, it is evident that, there are series of incidents against the petitioner that he attended the duty by consuming alcohol.

16. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any merit in the Writ Petition and the order under challenge does not warrant interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.