(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 topleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the Enquiry File No.02/2016 in Order.P.R.No. 97/2015-A, dt.16.08.2017 passed by the 2nd respondent and an Order in D(D)A.No.02/2018,C.4(Con) dated 18-05-2020 passed by the 1st respondent is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

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 be pleased to suspend the Enquiry File No.02/2016 in Order:P.R.No. 97/2015-A, dt.16.08.201-7 passed bythe 2nd respondent and an Order in D(D)A.No.02/2018,C.4(Con) dated 18-05-2020 passed by the 1st respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

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 may be pleased to grant leave to file the counter affidavit and receive the same in the above writ petition no. 31239 of 2023 and pass)

T.C.D. Sekhar, J.

1. The present writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings dated 16.08.2017 issued by the 2nd respondent, which was confirmed in order dated 18.05.2020 passed by the 1st respondent under which the petitioner was dismissed from service as he was found guilty of the charges leveled against him.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Attender, Mobile Court, Vizianagaram on 19.02.1988. Subsequehntly, he was promoted as Process Server and posted at Central Nazarath, District Court, Vizianagaram. Further, on 24.04.2015 he was transferred on deputation to Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kurupam. While working in the said station, the petitioner was issued order in PR No.97/2015-A under which he was suspended from service for a period of six (06) months on the complaint submitted by Tanani Ramana, Kilari Naidu and Dannina Sivaswaroop Kumar, alleging that the petitioner collected huge amounts representing that he would secure jobs to them in the Court. Further, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the head of the Vigilance cum- Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act, Vizianagaram. Upon enquiry a preliminary report dated 27.04.2015 was submitted and the District Judge, Vizianagaram ordered regular departmental enquiry by proceedings in PR No.97/2015-A, dt.14.08.2015 and the petitioner was asked to submit explanation within seven (07) days. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted explanation denying the charges by stating that the amounts were borrowed from the above named persons for his daughter’s marriage.

3. On the very same allegations, a case in Crime No.72 of 2015 was registered on 28.04.2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC and the petitioner was arrested in connection with the said crime. In the remand report, it was mentioned that the appointment orders are issued by forging the signatures of District Judges, Vizianagaram, Visakhapatnam and Srikakulam Districts by the petitioner.

4. Thereafter, the period of suspension was extended for a further period of six (06) months by proceedings dated 28.10.2015 by the 2nd respondent and payment of subsistence allowance was stopped. Further, the 2nd respondent framed articles of charges against the petitioner on 02.11.2015, which are as follows:

                  Article-I: That you Sri N.V.S.R. Murthy, while working as Process Service in the District Court, Vizianagaram, from August, 2008 to 25.04.2015, has made a false representation to several gullible unemployed youth namely one Tanari Ramana, Dannina Siva Swaroopkumar and Kilari Naidu and several others to the effect that you would secure employment to them in the Courts of Vizianagaram District and Visakhapatnam District and collected huge amounts from them by got crediting the amounts into your account viz., (1) Canara Bank, V.T. Agraharam, Vizianagaram, bearing A/c.1661101011994. (2) Indian Overseas Bank, Vizianagaram, bearing A/c.Nos.03840100021381 and 038401000019588. (3) Central Bank, Thotapalem, Vizianagaram, bearing A/c. Nos.2141756052 and 2141756029. (4) Karnataka Bank Ltd., Vizianagaram, bearing A/c.No.7972500100586101. (5) Bank of India, Vizianagaram, bearing A/c.No.861310110005551. (6) Dena Bank, Vizianagaram, bearing A/c.No.145610032321. (7) Bank of Baroda, Vizianagaram, bearing A/c.No.24220100002199. (8) State Bank of India, Cantonment Branch, Vizianagaram, bearing A/c.No.31718141903 and (9) Corporation Bank, Vizianagaram, bearing A/c.No.SB/01/005902. This conduct of yours shows that you have cheated the public and amassed huge amount which is unbecoming to a Government servant and contravention of Rule 3 of A.P.C.S (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and liable for punishment under Rule 9 of A.P.C.S. (CC & A) Rules, 1991.

                  Article-2: “That you Sri N.V.S.R. Murthy, while working as Process Server in the District Court, Vizianagaram, from August, 2008 to 25.04.2015, have cheated the public namely Tanari Ramana, Dannina Siva Swaroopkumar and Kilari Naidu and several others gullible unemployed youth and collected the huge amount from them by promising to secure jobs for them in the Courts of Vizianagaram District and Visakhapatnam District and that too impress the above said persons that you have fabricated a letter in the name of Sri P.Muthyala Naidu, the then Administrative Registrar of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, under which directing the District Judge, Vizianagaram to give employment to 90 persons and also directing the District Judge, Visakhapatnam, to give employment to 87 persons nominated in the said letter and thereby fabricated those appointment letters in the name of Registrar of Administration, Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and you have committed an offence of fabrication of letters which is unbecoming to a Government servant and contravention of Rule 3 of A.P.C.S (conduct) Rules, 1964 and liable for punishment under Rule 9 of A.P.C.S. (CC & A) Rules, 1991.

5. The petitioner submitted written statement on 05.12.2015 to the articles of charges and requested to supply all the material papers that are mentioned in the preliminary enquiry report. It is further case of the petitioner that the disciplinary authority supplied only copy of the complaint submitted by Tanani Ramana through PR No.97/2015-A, dt.28.12.2015 and did not furnish the other documents.

6. It is further case of the petitioner that, he made another representation dated 27.01.2016 requesting to furnish all other documents filed along with the complaint and preliminary enquiry report. It was further requested to revoke the suspension as the enquiry is not concluded even after a period of one (01) year. The said request of the petitioner was rejected by the 2nd respondent through order dt.28.04.2016. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent appointed the 3rd respondent as ‘Enquiry Officer’ through proceedings dated 30.04.2016 and departmental enquiry was started on 01.06.2016. It is further case of the petitioner that, since the requisite material is not supplied by the Enquiry Officer, he filed petitions seeking adjournments during the enquiry period from 24.08.2016 to 12.11.2016.

7. It is the specific case of the petitioner that, the enquiry was not conducted as per CCA Rules, 1981 and the 3rd respondent submitted its report dated 18.04.2017 by concluding that the charges framed against the petitioner are proved inasmuch as he has contravened rules 3 & 9 of APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The 2nd respondent thereafter called for written explanation on the proposal of punishment of dismissal from service through proceedings dated 05.06.2017. The petitioner submitted application dated 23.06.2017, requesting the 2nd respondent to extend 20 days time for filing written explanation and the same was allowed by extending the time till 01.07.2017 and thereafter the petitioner submitted explanation on 06.07.2017, requesting the 2nd respondent to reopen the enquiry and to submit all documents.

8. It is further case of the petitioner, instead of furnishing the documents sought for by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent passed final order in PR No.97/2015-A, dated 16.08.2017 imposing major penalty of dismissal from service. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before the 1st respondent and the same was dismissed by order dated 18.05.2020 by the 1st respondent. Questioning these orders, the present writ petition is filed.

9. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 filed counter affidavit denying the averments made in support of the writ petition by contending that the petitioner supplied forged and fabricated list of selected candidates as if it is addressed by Registrar (Admn.) to the Principal District Judge, Vizianagaram in proceedings dated 27.01.2014. As per the preliminary report, a case in Crime No.72 of 2015 was registered against the petitioner and the same is being investigated by CID. After, the conclusion of the preliminary enquiry, a report dated 27.04.2015 was submitted stating that the petitioner has deceived the individuals, who gave complaint against him by playing fraud. Subsequently, he was placed under suspension and took up the departmental enquiry.

10. It is further averred in the counter affidavit that, after following the procedure contemplated under A.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1964, the 2nd respondent passed order of removal of the petitioner from service and appeal preferred by him was also dismissed by order dated 18.05.2020. It is further contended that after a lapse of three (03) years from the order of the 1st respondent, the present writ petition is filed.

11. It is the specific case of the respondents that, the petitioner was supplied with all copies of documents and he was also permitted to engage retired government servant to defend his case. Despite giving several opportunities, the petitioner did not secure retired employee and the same is evident from the proceedings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Further, the Enquiry Officer after recording the evidences of witnesses directed the petitioner to cross examine them, but the petitioner protracted the matter on one pretext or the other.

12. It is further averred that there are no grounds to interfere with the orders passed by the respondents and to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of laches inasmuch as the writ petition was filed after a period of three (03) years from the date of order passed by the 1st respondent.

13. Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents.

14. Perused the record.

15. It is the specific case of the petitioner that, the respondents without furnishing the documents which are basis for initiating the disciplinary proceedings against him passed orders under challenge. He would further submit that, he made several representations to the respondent Nos.2 & 3 in that regard. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents would strenuously contend that all the documents were furnished to the petitioner at the time of enquiring, despite the same, the petitioner kept on filing representations.

16. In order to verify the contention of the petitioner, this Court by order dated 06.01.2026 called for the record pertaining to the case of the petitioner and the same is produced before this Court. On perusal of record, it is evident that the enquiry was posted from time to time i.e., on 24.08.2016, 03.09.2016, 13.09.2016, 17.09.2016, 26.09.2016, 04.10.2016 and 07.10.2016 at the request of the petitioner. Despite granting ample opportunities, the petitioner did not choose to cross examine the witnesses. Further, the petitioner also made application to transfer the departmental enquiry initiated against him. In this regard, the Enquiry Officer submitted a detailed communication dated 13.10.2016 to the 2nd respondent and on perusal of the same, it is evident that the disciplinary authority furnished all copies to the petitioner before commencement of the departmental enquiry and he did not request any other copies from the Enquiry Officer.

17. Further, the petitioner made another representation dated 23.11.2016 requesting to furnish the documents pertaining to the enquiry. The said application was disposed of by order dated 25.11.2016 by observing that the petitioner was furnished with all relevant documents earlier, as seen from the record. The said docket order passed by the Enquiry Officer attained finality, inasmuch as the same was not challenged by way of appeal before the 2nd respondent. Further, the Enquiry Officer also passed order dated 18.02.2017 categorically observing that all the material filed along with the complaint was furnished to the petitioner and the question of furnishing the documents which are not available in the record does not arise. The said docket order was passed on the representation dated 23.01.2017 made by the petitioner. Further, the said order also attained finality inasmuch as it was not assailed before the 2nd respondent.

18. From the above, it is evident that the petitioner in order to protract the proceedings before the enquiry Officer made untenable requests, without there being any cause. Further, despite granting ample opportunities, he did not choose to cross examine the witnesses. Apart from the same, the petitioner had collected huge amounts from complainants and in fact he has furnished forged and fabricated list of selected candidates said to have been issued by the Registrar (Admn), High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The collection of amounts by the petitioner is also evident from his bank transactions. Apart from the same, the writ petition is also filed after a lapse of three (03) years from the date of order passed by the 1st respondent and no explanation whatsoever was offered in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition in that regard. In the absence of any explanation, the present writ petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches.

19. As can be seen from the record, it is evident that the Articles of charges framed against the petitioner are proved and taking into consideration of the gravity of charges, major penalty of dismissal from service was ordered against the petitioner. Viewed from any angle, there are no merits in the present writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed.

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