logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 APHC 260 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Writ Petition No. 18530 of 2009
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR
Parties : K. Venkata Ramana Areddy Versus The Registrar Management AP High Court Hyd Another, A.P. High Court, Hyderabad & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: D. Kodandarami Reddy, Advocate. For the Respondents: B. Vasantha Lakshmi, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 20-02-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Judgment :-

(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 toissue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dt. 25-11- 2006 in Roc No. 417/2005 C.4 (Con.) passed by the Hon'ble High Court confirming the orders dt. 22-2-2005 of the District Judge, Kadapa imposing the punishment of with holding of five increments with cumulative effect, declaring them as illegal, improper arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to grant all consequential service benefits to the petitioner including his due promotion and attendant emoluments and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2009(WPMP 24230 OF 2009

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 expedite the hearing by fix an early date for hearing of the writ petition pending disposal of the writ petition before this Hon'ble Court and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 16876 OF 2014

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)

T.C.D. Sekhar, J.

1. The present writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings in ROC No.417/2005, C.4(Con.), dated 25.11.2006, issued by the 1st respondent, confirming the order dated 22.02.2005, passed by the 2nd respondent through which a punishment of withholding five increments with cumulative effect was imposed against the petitioner.

2. It is a case of the petitioner that, while he was working as Field Assistant in the court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, the learned Judge passed order dated 04.11.2003, in EP No.9 of 2003, committing the judgment debtor therein to civil prison for a period of three (03) months along with cash batta of Rs.3,500/-. The committal warrant was prepared and the judgment debtor was entrusted to the petitioner and one Sri N.Nagabhushanam, the Process Server to be handed over at Central Prison, Kadapa, at 6.20 pm. It is further stated that, as the jail authorities would not take the judgment debtor beyond 5 pm, the petitioner along with the Process Server took the judgment debtor to the court premises to guard him. It is further case of the petitioner that, during the intervening night of 04.11.2003 and 05.11.2003, the judgment debtor escaped from their custody, when they allowed him to answer nature’s call. Accordingly, a report dated 05.11.2003, was submitted by the petitioner to the Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, informing about the said incident.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner was kept under suspension vide proceedings dated 07.11.2003. Subsequently, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, by framing Article of Charge stating that, the petitioner is responsible in allowing the judgment debtor in EP No.9 of 2003, to escape from his custody and thereby he had committed grave irregularity in discharge of his duty, and asked the petitioner to submit explanation. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted explanation denying the charges framed against him. The District Judge, Kadapa, directed to conduct a regular departmental enquiry against the petitioner and appointed the Junior Civil Judge, Nandalur, as enquiry officer to submit report, inasmuch as the explanation offered by the petitioner was not satisfactory. Further, after conducting enquiry against the petitioner, the enquiry officer found that the petitioner is guilty of the charge leveled against him and submitted a report dated 27.03.2004 to the District Judge. The 2nd respondent enclosing a copy of the report, dated 27.03.2004, issued show cause notice to the petitioner calling for explanation as to why he should not be dismissed from service through proceedings dated 30.06.2004. To the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted explanation dated nil.07.2004, denying the charge leveled against him and requested to drop further action in the matter. After considering the case of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent by order dated 03.12.2004, imposed punishment of withholding of five increments with cumulative effect. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representation dated 19.01.2005 to the 2nd respondent, with a request to sanction full salary and allowances for the period from 10.11.2003 to 09.12.2004, including annual increments. The 2nd respondent, by treating the period of suspension already undergone by the petitioner as leave on loss of pay, issued proceedings dated 22.02.2005. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner preferred appeal before the 1st respondent, and upon consideration, the 1st respondent by order dated 25.11.2006, dismissed the same, by confirming the punishment of withholding the five increments with cumulative effect and by setting aside the order of the 2nd respondent in treating the period of suspension of the petitioner as leave on loss of pay as no opportunity was given to him. Questioning the said order, the present writ petition is filed.

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

5. Perused the record.

6. The charges leveled against the petitioner is that, the judgment debtor in EP No.9 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoti, was escaped from the custody of the petitioner. In this regard, on perusal of the evidence of PW.2, the Sheristadar, it is evident that on 04.11.2003, the judgment debtor was entrusted to the petitioner and one Sri N.Nagabhushanam to be handed over at Central Prison, Kadapa along with warrant. The explanation/defense offered by the petitioner that, the factum of escaping the judgment debtor was informed to DW.1, the attender in I Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Rayachoty, who was on guard duty at the residential bungalow of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty at 2.30 am. But, on perusal of the evidence on record, it is clear that the petitioner and Sri Nagabhushanam, had allowed the judgment debtor to go outside the compound wall by asking him to return within a particular time and upon which the judgment debtor escaped. Further, on perusal of the evidence of DW.1, it is apparent that, as per the directions of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, he had searched for the petitioner and Sri N.Nagabhushanam and he did not find them in the court premises on the intervening night of 04.11.2003 and 05.11.2003. From the above, it is clear that, the petitioner was not even present in the court premises as stated by them and therefore, the plea set out by the petitioner cannot be believed. Be that as it may, the fact remains that, the judgment debtor escaped from the custody of the petitioner, later he was arrested by the police. Therefore, the petitioner was not deligent in enforcing the duties entrusted to him.

7. The counsel for the petitioner would further contend that despite the fact that the incident was informed to the attender who was on guard duty to inform the same to the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, the guard did not inform, as the officer fell asleep. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be believed inasmuch as, it is usual practice that the Judicial Magistrate of I class would be disturbed while sleeping by the police and hospital attenders for receiving express FIRs and also for recording dying declarations. In such circumstances, if really the petitioner had gone to inform the same to the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, he could have insisted the attender to inform the same to the officer concerned. Therefore, there is no force in the argument of the counsel for the petitioner and accordingly the same is rejected.

8. Though, we do not wish to interfere with the order passed by the 1st respondent, having regard to the fact that the petitioner is retired from service, taking a lenient view in the matter, we think it is appropriate to impose punishment of withholding three increments with cumulative effect, in substitution of punishment of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed, as indicated above.

There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal