AP High Court Upholds Dismissal of Record Assistant for Demanding Bribe From Bank Officials and Filing Fake Complaints Against Judicial Officer
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice Sumathi Jagadam held that the punishment of removal from service imposed upon a court employee was commensurate with the proven charges of misconduct. The Court recorded that the disciplinary authority’s decision was justified and upheld the findings of the enquiry officer. Concluding that the writ petition had no merit, the Bench dismissed it and confirmed that there would be no order as to costs. The Court further directed that all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, would stand closed.
The petitioner was appointed on 10 July 2000 as a Record Assistant with the Mandal Legal Services Authority, Pathikonda, in Kurnool District. Subsequently, complaints were lodged against him, leading to disciplinary proceedings initiated by way of a show cause notice comprising three distinct charges
The first charge alleged that the petitioner had sent false complaints bearing forged signatures against the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Chairman of the Mandal Legal Services Committee. The second charge related to lack of punctuality and allegations of using abusive language and filing false petitions against judicial officers and staff members. The third charge pertained to the demand of illegal gratification from field officers of the State Bank of India in return for handing over award copies of cases settled before the Lok Adalats.
The petitioner was afforded full opportunity to present his case. He actively cross-examined witnesses produced during the enquiry. After due enquiry, the officer found the petitioner guilty of charges one and three, while charge two was held unproved. Based on this report, the second respondent issued a show cause notice, seeking explanation as to why the major penalty of removal from service, under Rule 9(ix) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, should not be imposed.
The petitioner filed a detailed reply on 9 January 2020. After consideration, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of removal from service on 8 April 2022. Challenging this, the petitioner approached the High Court through the present writ petition.
The petitioner argued that the enquiry officer’s findings with respect to charges one and three were incorrect and unsupported by sufficient evidence. He further submitted that the disciplinary authority had failed to consider material objections raised in his response to the enquiry report.
With regard to the charge of demanding a bribe from bank officials, the background revealed that the Mandal Legal Services Committee at Nandyal regularly conducted Lok Adalats to settle disputes between the State Bank of India and its borrowers. Once awards were passed, field officers of the concerned branches would collect certified copies from the committee. On 27 March 2014, bank officials submitted a written complaint to the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Chairman of the committee at Pathikonda, alleging that the petitioner was demanding bribes under the guise of formalities to release the certified copies.
During the enquiry, persons who had signed the complaint and other field officers were examined as prosecution witnesses numbered 1 to 6. While witnesses 1 to 5 did not support their earlier complaint, witness 6 affirmed that the petitioner indeed demanded illegal gratification. The petitioner contended that the sole testimony of one witness could not suffice when others retracted. The Court recorded that this was an important aspect considered during adjudication.
As for the first charge, the allegation was that the petitioner had created false complaints using forged signatures against the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Chairman at Pattikonda, who testified as prosecution witness 7. He compared the handwriting in the false complaint with the petitioner’s handwriting from office records and found them similar. The enquiry officer, after independently comparing the handwriting, also concluded that the forged documents were authored by the petitioner. The petitioner objected, stating that the matter should have been referred to a handwriting expert. This objection was overruled by both the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority.
The Court noted that both the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority were judicial officers trained to compare handwriting as part of their duties, and therefore their findings could not be disregarded.
On examining the materials, the Division Bench recorded multiple judicial observations.
Regarding the third charge of demanding a bribe, the Bench stated: “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.”
With respect to the first charge concerning forged complaints, the Court noted: “The basis for this complaint was that the handwriting in the complaint was similar to the handwriting of the petitioner in the records available with the Mandal Legal Services Authority. The initial complaint came to be filed in this regard by PW.7, after he had compared the handwriting in the fake complaint and the handwriting of the petitioner in the records available with the authority. Subsequently, the enquiry officer also compared the handwritings in both the sets of papers and arrived at a finding that the handwriting in the fake letters was that of the petitioner.”
Addressing the petitioner’s objection to the absence of a handwriting expert’s opinion, the Court recorded: “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.”
The Bench concluded: “This Court, for the reasons set out above, does not find any reason to differ with the findings given by the enquiry officer, as affirmed by the disciplinary authority in regard to charges 1 and 3.”
Finally, on the issue of punishment, the Division Bench recorded: “On the question of the punishment to be awarded, 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.”
The Court issued its concluding directive as follows: “For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall stand closed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: K.V. Raghu Veer, Advocate representing E.V.V.S. Ravi Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents: S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, Standing Counsel for APSLSA
Case Title: Kummari Satyanarayana v. The State Legal Service Authority and Others
Neutral Citation: APHC010482482022
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 29466 of 2022
Bench: Justice R. Raghunandan Rao, Justice Sumathi Jagadam
