APHC010453022021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 27610 OF 2021 Between: G. Jayachandra Babu, S/o.Late Sri G.Reddeppa Hindu, aged about 56 years Occ: Superintendent, Junior Civil Judge's Court Kuppam, Chittoor District Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioner AND 1. The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District Rep.by its Registrar (Administration) 2. The Principal District Judge, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh 3. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District, AP ...Respondents 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 to issue a writ, order or direction one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the Report dt. 16-04-2018 in Departmental Enquiry No.1/2017 by the Respondent No.3, the proceedings in Dis.No.4491/Estt./ 2018 dt. 13-06-2018 by the 2 nd Respondent and the order in D(D) A.No.26/2020, C.4(Con.) Dated 15-07-2020 to the extent of imposing penalty of withholding of 2 increments with cumulative effect, are arbitrary, illegal, violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India, principles of natural justice and the procedure prescribed under Rule.20 and 21 of the A.P. (CCA) Rules 1991 and set aside the same and consequently direct the 2'"'^ Respondent to confer petitioner all the on the benefits of promotion and increments which he entitled to from the date of the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against him. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SUREPALLI MADHAVA RAO was Counsel for the Respondents: SRI S. S.NAGESWARAREDDY, SC FOR APHC The Court made the following order: 1 RRR, J & JS, J W.P.No.27610 of 2021 APHC010453022021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3541] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION No:27610 of 2021 Between: G Jayachandra Babu ...PETITIONER AND fhe Hon’bie High Court Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: ...RESPONDENT(S) 1.SUREPALLI MADHAVA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.S S.NAGESWARAREDDY The Court made the following ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri S. Madhava Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri S.S. Nageswara Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearfng for respondents. The petitioner, who had initially joined as a Record Assistant, at the relevant point of time, was working as Senior Assistant in the Court of the 2. 2 RRR, J & JS, J W.P.No.27610of 2021 . II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, from 04.12.2014 to 13.03.2017, and was subsequently promoted as Superintendent (Category-Ill) and posted to the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Filer. The petitioner, received a show cause notice, dated 03.04.2017, 3. alleging that he along with one Sri S. Anwar Basha, Field Assistant, had affected delivery of possession of property, beyond the scope of the warrant that was to be issued in an Execution Petition. It appears that there was a Lok Adalat Award, in O.S.No.128 of 1996 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, under which an order of perpetual injunction was granted against the defendants. Later, the plaintiff filed an Execution Petition, for implementation of the order of injunction. However, a warrant of delivery of possession was prepared and signed by the petitioner, who was discharging the duties of the Deputy Nazar, as well as the Field Assistant, on 07.09.2016. Thereafter, a new warrant, with the same relief, was again prepared on 17.09.2016 and delivery of possession of the property was executed by the Field Assistant, on the basis of the second warrant, dated 17.09.2016. The petitioner filed his response to the show cause notice issued. 4. in relation to this charge. In the response, the petitioner contended that he had put his initials on the warrant of 07.09.2016, without verifying properly, on account of the immense pressure of work on him as he was discharging the duties of Deputy Nazar, Bench Clerk in-charge of MVOPs, Execution Petitions and Original Petitions, apart from being in-charge of preparation of accounts RRR, J & JS, J W.P.No.27610of2021 and discharging protocol duties. The petitioner further put initials on the second warrant prepared he cannot be held liable for the mistake warrant. stated that he had not on 17.09.2016 and consequently which occurred in preparation of the 5. The enquiry officer, after collection of evidence and conducting the enquiry, had held that the petitioner had also signed the second warrant of 17.09.2016 and was fully aware of preparation of the second warrant. The petitioner had been extremely negirgent along with Sri S. Anwar Basha, in preparing the warrant. enquiry officer, had thereupon, held that the 6. The disciplinary authority-cum-Principal District Judge, Chittoor, after receipt of the Dis.No.4491/Estt./2018, dated 13.06.2018 of post from Superintendent to Senior Assistant enquiry report, had issued ’ proceedings bearing awarding punishment of reduction permanently. 7. Aggrieved by this order of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner moved an administrative appeal before this Court. The Registrar Administration, disposed of this appeal, by order dated 15.07.2020, affirming the punishment of the finding of negligence against the petitioner. However reduction of post, imposed against the petitioner imposed with the punishment of withholding of two i effect. was set aside and he was increments with cumulative 8. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has wayof the present writ petition. moved this Court by 4 RRR, J & JS, J W.P.No.27610 of 2021 The petitioner contends that the enquiry was not conducted properly and that the enquiry report did not contain Article 1 of the charge as well as the statement of imputation of misconduct and misbehavior and 9. consequently, the finding against the petitioner and assessment of evidence cannot relate to the said charge. 10. A perusal of the enquiry report would show that the said charge is not verbatim reproduced, in the enquiry report. However, the purport and gist of the charge has been set out in the language of the enquiry officer. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the appreciation of evidence by the enquiry officer, is not appropriate as the charge and statement of imputations are not reproduced in the enquiry report. 11. The enquiry officer, after going into the evidence and after setting out the procedures that are normally followed in preparation of warrants etc., had gave a clear finding that the petitioner was involved in the processing of the warrants dated 07.09.2016 and 17.09.2016. We have not been shown any material to deviate from this finding. As far as the quantum of punishment is concerned, the original punishment of reduction in rank had been modified to withholding of two increments. The enquiry officer had only held that the petitionerwas negligent in preparation of warrants and there is no other motive or oblique purpose which is said to have actuated the petitioner to have committed such an error. 12. 5 RRR, J & JS, J W.P.No.27610 of 2021 In the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice wouid be met by reducing the punishment of withholding of two increments, with cumulative effect, to that of withholding cumulative effect. 13. of one increment with 14. With the above direction, the shall be no order as to costs. As if any, shall stand closed. writ petition, is disposed of. There a sequel, pending miscellaneous application. Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTJON OFFICER To. ' ■ I he Registrar (Administration), Hon’ble High Court Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Principal District Judge, Chittoor District 3. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District, AP. 4. One CC to Sri Surepalli Madhava Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri S S.Nageswarareddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies of Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh. Cnr ' ■ HIGH COURT DATED:22/08/2025 \ ORDER WP NO. 27610 OF 2021 2 2 SEP 2025 jg) rrentSectifox#^ DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS