AP High Court Upholds Termination Of Record Assistant Guilty Of Demanding Bribe, Lodging Fake Complaints Against Judge

Upholding the punishment imposed, a Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice Sumathi Jagadham observed,

“… this Court is of the opinion that the punishment of removal from service is commensurate with the gravity of the charges, which have been made out, against the petitioner by the enquiry officer. An employee of the Court, who indulges in creating fake complaints against his superior officers and an employee who demands illegal gratification from the officials of banks, is not a person, who can be allowed to continue in service.”

Background

Initially, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner levelling three charges— first, that he had sent false complaints with false signatures against the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Chairman, MLSC; second, that we was not punctual in office, used to terrorise his staff by using filthy language and sent fake allegations against the Judicial Officers and staff, and; third, that he demanded bribe from the Field Officers of SBI, for handing over award copies of the bank matters settled before the Lok Adalats. Notably, the MLSC would settle disputes between SBI and its borrowers, and once award was passed, Field Officers of the concerned branches would come to collect certified copies of the awards from the MLSC.

While the petitioner was given adequate opportunity of hearing in the enquiry, the enquiry officer found him guilty under the first and third charge. Subsequently, the District Legal Service Authority (Respondent 2) imposed a major penalty on the petitioner by which he was removed from service. Aggrieved by the order of removal, the petitioner approached the High Court.

The petitioner contended that the findings of the enquiry officer were incorrect and lacked sufficient proof, as the statement of only one witness (PW6) was relied upon, and that the disciplinary authority failed to consider the petitioner's objections before imposing the penalty of removal from service.

Noting that the statement of PW6 was cogent and could not be disregarded merely because other witnesses had not deposed in a similar alignment, the Division Bench observed,

“This Court is of the opinion that the finding given by the enquiry officer, which was also accepted by the disciplinary authority that the petitioner was guilty of this charge, on the basis of the evidence of PW.6, is correct. A perusal of the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 would only show that these witnesses had been vague in their response and their evidence suggests that they were trying to help the petitioner. On the other hand, the evidence of PW.6 is clear and cogent and we do not find any reason to reject the said evidence, much less, on the ground that the other witnesses had not deposed in a similar manner.”

Regarding the objection with respect to the enquiry officer, instead of a handwriting expert, comparing the signatures and concluding that the same was of the petitioner, the Court observed,

“The petitioner contends that such a finding could not have been arrived at without referring the documents to a handwriting expert. This contention of the petitioner was rejected, both by the enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority, on the ground that a simple comparison of the handwriting in both sets of documents makes it very clear that it is the handiwork of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner, that such findings are not permissible, cannot be accepted. Both the enquiry officer, as well as the disciplinary authority, are judges, who are trained in such matters and who have experience in comparing handwriting in the course of their official work.”

Accordingly, the Court upheld the punishment and dismissed the writ petition.

Case Details:

Case Number: WRIT PETITION No: 29466 of 2022

Case Title: Kummari Satyanarayana v. The State Legal Service Authority and Others

Click Here To Read/Download Order