Allowed

Radhika Jaiswal D/o. Sri.R.Dilip Kumar Jaiswal, v. the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State

Telangana HC30 Dec 2021WP/8588/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Judicial Service Officer challenged a punishment order withholding increments based on misconduct charges. The High Court ruled that the disciplinary findings were perverse as they were not supported by evidence on record.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 13.10.2016 inflicting punishment is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to consequential benefits. The writ petition is allowed without costs.

Radhika Jaiswal D/o. Sri.R.Dilip Kumar Jaiswal, Vs… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE.OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ON'

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA rHE HoNouRABLE SIti?rllcE N.TuKARAMJt

¶5

WRIT P ETITI ON NO:8 588 0 F 2017

¶6

Between:

¶7

Radhika Jaiswal D/o. Sri R Dilip Kumar Jaiswal, Occupation Judicial Service. R/o. H No 3-3_1a8 ano amp 4b, kr.r]ig;drlilffi;;b-,a[ relangana 5ooo27

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

'1 The High court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the state of rerangana and for The State of Andhra pradesh, R;6re-s;;A';; iir"R'"g,rtr"r. (Vigitance)

¶11

The State of Telanoana fle-presented. by its.Secretary to, the Government, Law Department, Tetanlana Seiretariat, gvrjeianiO.''''

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Articre -226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit treo-tneieiti,,'ii" r-righ court may be preased to rssue a writ of^{,,CERTtoTlT],,^:l} ""y^{;i;"; ;;propriate writ after cailins for the} records in order Roc.No.124212,1a-,girance dir,irt"o 13.10.20i6 issued by tne Respondent no 1 and quash^the^samE i".rrirg t'he findings oi ti" o-il.ip]inurv Authoritv communicated on ?.a 12.2016 ,iJ"^-prJ.""ai.s, i;"niii.N'., .liilbotq_ Ceil dated 21.12.2016 u. Hlil "roitruryl^{;;;;ry to the materiar} "rrtiutr"^on

¶14

WPMP. No:10 646 0F 20 17

¶15

Petition under section r5 r cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of ihe.q.e]iJio.n, *r"'rigi crlrt mav be preased to suspend the No.124zt2o14- vrcrLANCE CEir,-i"t"J'rii"o.i6i"o: ir"ri,l.ol"d, ,n" 3;s:.:3":

¶16

Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. K S MURTHY

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No. i: BATHULA RAJ KIRAN, SC FOR APHC

¶18

counsel for the Respondent No. 2: Gp FoR sERVrcEs r/cp FoR HOME

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HON'B^{LE THECHIEF JUSTICESATISHCHANDRAS}IARMA} AXD

¶21

I THE HON'B^{LE SRI JUSTICEN.}

¶22

WRIT PETI^{TION No.8588 of 2O17}

¶23

ORDER: eer^{the Hon'bletheChief Justice Satish ChandraShaIma)}

¶24

The petitioner^{beforethis Court, who is a Judicial} Officer, has^{liled' the present writ petitionbeing aggrieved} by the order^{of punishment dated 13'10'2016' by which} a punishment^{of withholdingof two increments with} cumulative effect^{has been inllicted upon her'}

¶25

The facts of^{the case revealthat the petitionerwas} appointed^{as aJunior Civil Judge on 01'09'2010'} Thereafter,^{she was transferred to differentplaces and} while she was^{posted atRanga Reddy District as} Principal Junior^{Civil Judge} -^{cum -VIII Metropolitan} Magistrate,^{Cyberabad at Rajendranagar' Ranga Reddy} District, a^{'charge sheet was served upon her dated} 16.03.2015.^{The followingcharges were levelled against}

¶26

her:-

¶27

"STATEMENT^{OFARTICLES OFCHARGES} FRAMED AGAINST^{MTS. RADHIKAJAISWAL'} PRINCIPAL^{JUNIOR CIVILJUDGE'CUM'VIII} METROPOLITAN^{MAGISTRATE, CYBERABADAT} RAJENDERNAGAR,^{RANGAREDDYDISTRICT'} TELANGANA STATE,

¶28

ARTICLES^{OF CHARGENO'1:}

¶29

That you Mrs.^{Radhika Jaissal, Principal} 'Junior Civil Judge-cum-VIll^{MetropolitanMagistrate'}

¶30

Cyberabad at^{Rajendernagar, Rangareddydistrict' as} the oflicials at Police^Station, such,^insisted which comcs under the^territorial Raj endernagar, jurisdiction of your^{court, for providinga driver for} your private^{car and had utilizedthe servicesof Sri} M.Venkatesh,^{HomeGuard-Drivet t522' to drive your} personal car for^{official and unoflicialpurposes'} unauthorizedly,^{even though, the police are not bound} to provide^{a driverfor private car and misusedyour} official^{position and actedin such a manner' whicha} judicial officer ought^{not to have done' which act of} yours if^{proved or established would amount to grave} misconduct,^{unbecoming of a judicial officer within the} meaning of^{Rule 3 of A P'} Civil Services^(Conduct) Rules 1964.

¶31

BASIS OF^CHARGE:

¶32

Report sent^{in Dis.No'S740,dated 16 07'2014' from} the Principal^{District Judge, Rangareddy'}

¶33

Detailed^{special report sent in Dis'No'5922'dated} 22.07 .2014 from^{thePrincipalDistrict Judge} ' RangareddY.

¶34

ARTIC LES^OFC HARGE No.2:

¶35

That^{you Mrs.RadhikaJaiswal, PrincipalJunior} Civil Judge-cum-VIII^{MetropolitanMagistrate'} Cyberabad at^{Rajendernagar, Rangareddydistrict' as} such, having^{been advisedby the Principal District} Judge, Rangareddy^{and Metropolitan Sessions Judge'} Cyberabad^{ora11y, to discontinuethe services of the} home^{guardas your personaldriver, you did not mend} your ways and^{continuedto avail the servicesof home} guard for driving^{your personal car for officialand} unoflicial^{purposes, unauthorizedlyand misused your} official^{position and acted in such a manner givinga} go-bye to the advice^{of the superiors, whicha judicial} officer ought not^{to have done, which act of yours if} proved or established^{would amount tograve} misconduct,^{unbecomingof a judicial officer within the} \

¶36

¶37

¶38

meaning of Rule 3 of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964.

¶39

BASIS OF CHARGE:

¶40

Report sent in Dis.No.5740, dated 16.07.2014, from the Principal District Judge, Rangareddy.

¶41

Detailed special report sent in Dis.No.5922, dated 22.O7 .2014 from the Principal District Judge, Rangareddy.

¶42

ARTICLES OF CHARGE No.3:

¶43

That you Mrs. Radhika Jaiswal, Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendernagar, Rangareddy district, while working as Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy, Nizamabad district, from 01.01.2011 till your transfer, had also availed the services of a Home Guard-Driver, as provided by the police department to drive your personal car for official and unoffrcial purposes, unauthorizedly and misused your official position and acted in such a manner, which a judicial officer ought not to have done, which act of yours if proved or established would amount to grave misconduct, unbecoming of a^judicial officer within the meaning of Ruie 3 of A. P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964.

¶44

BASIS OF CHARGE:

¶45

Report sent in Dis.No.5740, dated 16.07.2014, from the Principal District Judge, Rangareddy.

¶46

Detailed special report sent in Dis.No.5922, dated 22.07.2014 from the Principal District Judge, Rangareddy.

¶47

ARTICLES OF CHARGE No.4:

¶48

That you Mrs. Radhika Jaisrval, Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-VlII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendernagar, Rangareddy district, as such, as against the High Court's circular instructions issued in Roc.No.2399/OP.Ce1l.E/2011, dated B-B-

¶49

201 1 and^{subsequentinstructionsissued from time to} time to all^{the JudicialOfficersinthe State to} maintain^{the timings of the benchstrictiy from 10:30} a.m., to^{2:00 p.m} ,^{and from 2:30 p'm'' to 5:00 p'm"} despite the^{oral instructionsof the Metropolitan} Sessions Judge,^{Cyberabad and without applyingfor} half-a-day's^{leave for leaving earlier or going late to the} court,^{have appliedfor permission to leavethe court} one hour^{earlier at4:00 p m'} '^on|O-O4-2O14 ' permission to^{go to the court one hour late at 1 1:30} a.m., and^{leave one hour earlier at 4:0O p m'' on 17-} 05-2014 and^{leave the court half-an-hour earlier at} 4:30 p.m.,^{on 03-06-2014,thus, in utter disobedience} to the High^{Court's circular instructionsactedin such} a manner^{amounting to derelictionof duties' r'"'hicha} judicial officer ought^{not to have done' whichact of} yours if proved^{or establishcdwould amount to grave} misconduct,^{unbecoming of a judicial oflicer within the} meaning of^{Rule 3 of A'P Civil Services(Conduct)} Rules 1964.

¶50

BASIS OF^CHARGE:

¶51

Report^{sent in Dis.No 5740, dated 16'07'2014' from} the Principal^{District Judge, Rangareddy'}

¶52

Detailed^{special reportsent in Dis'No'5922' dated} 22.07.2014 from^{thePrincipal District Judge'} RangareddY.

¶53

High Court's^{circularinstructions issued in} Roc.No.2399lOP.Cell.E/201^{1, dated 8-8-201 1'}

¶54

HYDERABAD

¶55

Date: 16-03-2015

¶56

REGISTRAR^(VIGILANCE)"

¶57

The petitioner^{submitted adetailed and an} exhaustive^{reply denying all the charges on 01'04'2015} and the disciplinary^{authority, not being satislied with} the reply submitted^{by the petitioner'appointed an}

¶58

¶59

Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer conducted a detailed and an exhaustive enquiry and submitted a report on 04.01.2016 exonerating the petitioner of all the charges. Meaning thereby, the Enquiry Officer gave a clean chit to the petitioner. The disciplinary authority i.e., the High Court, disagreeing with the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer, issued a show cause notice on 12.05.2OL6 and the petitioner again submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notide issued by the High Court and finally an order was pas:ied on 13.10.2016 inflicting the punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect.

¶60

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before this Court that the first three charges were in respect of an allegation stating that the petitioner has utilised the services of Home Guard as driver, who was provided by the Police Department, to drive her personal car for official and unofficial purposes. He has argued before this Court that the driver was tlever examined at any point of time in the departmental enquiry and there was a total denial on the part of the petitioner in respect of the aloresaid allegations. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer has given a clean chit to the petitioner in respect of tde ,y^{three charges and by no stretch of imagination,based}

¶61

¶62

upon the^{sarne matedal, the High Court could have} disagreed^{with the findings arrived at by the Enquiry} Officer.

¶63

The appreciation^{ofevidence adduced ina} departmental^{enquiry cannot be done by the High Court'} However, if^{the findings are peryerse' the salne can} certainly be^{interfered with'In the present case' the} Enquiry Officer,^{after examiningall the witnesses'has} arrivedataconclusionthatthechargesinrespectof utilisation^{of services of driverare not establishedat all'} One P.W.2 -^{Sri D.Nagarjun,was examined before the} Enquiry Officer^{and it was his statementon the basis of} which, the High^{Court has held the charges proved' The} statement of^P'W.2 -^{Sri D'Nagarjun,reveals that while} he was working^{as IAdditionalDistrictJudge-cum-} Metropolitan^{Sessions,Ranga Reddy District' itwas} brought to his^{notice that the chargedofficer has utilized} the services^{of a Home Guard driver' There was no} complaint of^{any kind by P'W'2 - Sri D'Nagarjun' to any} authority in^{respect of the aforesaidallegation'There} was no complaint^{by the Police in the matter' there was} no complaint^{by the driver in the matter and the driver} ,wasalsonotexaminedandtherefore'theHighCourt

¶64

¶65

could not have proved the charges merely on the basis of hearsay evidence.

¶66

In the considered opinion of this Court the Enquiry Officer was justified in giving a finding that the charges 1n respect of utilising the services of driver are not substantiated by evidence on record. In respect of the other charge, which was relating to late arriva-l and eariy departure, the Enquiry Officer has held that the charged officer did inform the authorities and therefore, again he has given a clean chit to the charged officer. Even in the note of dissent, the High Court has observed that the charged officer did apply for grant of permission for late arriva-l and early departure ald the early departure was to consult a doctor, as an appointment was given by the doctor immediately after the Court hours.

¶67

In the considered opinion of this Court, the note of dissent is again not based upon arry cogent material which was made available to the disciplinary authority by the Enquiry Officer and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the disciplinary authority has certainly erred in law and on facts in arriving at a different conclusion on the same set of facts and circumstances and also on . the same set of evidence.

¶68

Resultantly,^{as it is a case of no evidence' this Court} can certainly^{interferewith the departmentalenquiry and} the {indings^{arrivedat by the disciplinary authority'}

¶69

The Apex^{Court in the case of Yoginath D' Bagde v'} State^{of Maharashtralhas held' as under (paragraphs} 44,47^{and 51"):-}

¶70

"44'^{We fail to appreciate the approach of the} Disciplinary^{Committee which has gone by surmises} and^{conjectures rather than by the evidence-on-} record.^{The statementsof Dr Naranje and that of Mr} Bapat,^{Advocatehave notbeen takeninto} consideration^{by the Disciplinary Committee and it} has relied^{upon the statementof the complainant} alone^{to come to the conclusion that Mr Bapat'} Advocate^{hadassuredacquittalprovidedthe} complainant^{withdrew his transfer petitions'}

¶71

These^{facts will indicatethat the accused} (Deepak^{Trimbakrao Deshmukh) had takenthe Court'} where^{the two sessions trials were pendingagainst} him,^{for a ride'He had adopted similar tactics in the} Court^{of SessionsJudge'Wardha' and again in the} Court^{of lst AdditionalDistrlct and Sessions Judge'} Wardha,^{where thesetwo cases weretransferred'and} yet again^{in the Courtof the appellant wherethese} trials^{came to be ultimately transferred'} """"io.,"

¶72

lt^{was1astly contendedbYMr HarishN} rt cannot^{reaPPraise the evidence} Salve^{that this Cou} been^{scrutinisedbY the enquiry} which^{has alreadY} the DisciPlinary^{Committee'Itis} oflicer^{as also bY} High^{Courtor this Court cannot'in} contended^{that the}

¶73

,1rooo1 z scc 739

¶74

¶75

exercise of its^jurisdiction under Artrcle 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution, act as the appellate authority in the domestic enquiry or trial and it is not open to this Court to reappraise the evidence. The proposition as put forward by Mr Salve is in very broad terms and cannot be accepted. The law is well settled that if the findings are perverse and are not supported by evidence on record or the Iindings recorded at the domestic trial are such to which no reasonable^person would have reached, it would be open to the High Court as also to this Court to interfere in the matter. \n Kuldeep Singhv. Commr. of Police [(1999) 2 SCC 10 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 429 :JT (1998) 8 SC 6031 this Court, relying upon the earlier clecisions in Nand Kishore Prasadv. State of Bihar [(1978) 3 SCC 366 : 1978 SCC (L&S) 458 : AIR 1978 SC 1277 : (1978) 3 SCR 7081 ,^{State of AndhraPradeshv.Rama Rao} [AIR^{1963 SC} 1723 : (1964) 3 SCR 251 , Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Prakash Chand Jain [AIR 1969 SC 983 : (1969) 2 Ll) 3771 , Bharat Iron Worksv, Bhagubhai Balubhai Patell(1976) l SCC s18: 1976 SCC (L&S) 92: AIR 1976 SC 98 : (1976) 2 SCR 2801 as also Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Admn [(1984) 4 SCC 635 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 131 : AIR 1984 SC 180s:(1985) l SCR 8661 laid down that although the court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority or the enquiry officer in a departmental enquiry, it does not mean that in no circumstance can the court interfere. It was observed that the power of judicial review available to a High Court as also to this Court under the Constitution takes in its stride the domestic enquiry as well and the courts can interfere with the conclusions reached therein if there was no evidence to support the findings or the findings recorded were such as could not have been reached by an ordinary prudent man or the findings were - _perverse."

¶76

In the^{iight of the a-foresaid judgment'this Courtrs} of the^{oPinionthatas the charges havenot been Proved} based^{upon the evidence adclucedduring departmental} enquiry,^{the findings arrived at by the disciplinary} authoritY^{are Perverse findings'}

¶77

Resultantly,^{the order passed by the High Court} dated13.10'2016isherebyquashed.Thepetitioner shall be^{entitled for all the consequential benefits flowing} out^{of this order'}

¶78

Thewritpetitionisaccordinglyallowed.The miscellaneous^{applicatiorrspending, if any, shatl stand} closed'^{There shall be no order as to costs'}

¶79

rh at^{Rule Ni s} :l :"3""" l,f"lor"r:ff :' 3:::[3li^{1*3 ?i3lll;'i']='"',"iil" ntv o n "}

¶80

//TRUE^COPY//

¶81

SD/^{. P.PADM} ASSIST^{ANT ANABHAREG ISTREDDY} R

¶82

SECTION^OFFICER

¶83

To'

¶84

. .. ,- .'^,,.r .'r .lrrdicature^{at Hyderabad for the State} ' ? lii The Secretary {,":,',1# llf^to' fi[}"^jj:}!:;[fi #,,1i'};'^{;'"'{ r e a ns a n a}

¶85

rB,H^"' 1 {ff^$5na:,1;;r''"'rr:H: 7 Two CD^CoPtes' a. On"^{SPare CoPY} pM rf

¶86

HIGH COURT

¶87

DATED:3011212021

¶88

t
i\ E S}A ir
.:Y
-)
!1 0 5 iru z.tzz
.l
.t r,l:j l ,t

¶89

OROER

¶90

WP.No.8588^{of 2017}