Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has set aside the compulsory retirement of a judicial officer who was accused of behaving rudely with police personnel during a vehicle check at an election check-post.
The court found that the officer’s conduct towards the police personnel amounted to misconduct. However, it ruled that compulsory retirement was too severe a punishment considering the circumstances of the case.
A Division Bench comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda ordered the officer’s reinstatement.
Judicial officer stopped at election check-post
The petitioner had joined the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Service as a Junior Civil Judge. After completing the first stage of institutional training, he was posted as the II Additional Junior Civil Judge at Gurazala in Guntur district.
The incident that led to the disciplinary action took place on March 18, 2014 when police personnel deployed at the Pondugula Bridge check-post stopped the officer’s vehicle while enforcing the Model Code of Conduct.
According to the allegations, the officer got angry after being stopped. He allegedly spoke to the police personnel in a disrespectful manner, threatened a constable and instructed the officials to appear before his court.
Six charges were examined
The departmental proceedings involved six charges against the judicial officer.
Two charges were connected with his conduct towards the police personnel. The remaining four related to an earlier incident involving employees of the Tummalacheruvu Toll Plaza and an allegation that the officer remained absent from court without informing his superior authorities.
After conducting the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer found the two charges linked to the police incident proved. However, the officer was cleared of the other four charges.
The disciplinary authority did not agree with the Inquiry Officer regarding the four charges and decided that they should also be treated as proved. After considering the officer’s objections, compulsory retirement was recommended and imposed on January 4, 2018.
The respondents defended the disciplinary action, stating that the inquiry had been conducted according to the applicable service rules. They also argued that the officer’s behaviour amounted to grave misconduct under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
High Court restores findings clearing four charges
The High Court examined whether the disciplinary authority had sufficient grounds to disagree with the Inquiry Officer regarding Charges 3 to 6.
The Bench found no convincing reason in the disciplinary proceedings or other material placed before it to overturn the Inquiry Officer’s conclusions.
The court also found that no separate material had been identified to support the disciplinary authority’s decision on these charges.
The High Court therefore cancelled the findings against the officer on Charges 3 to 6 and restored the Inquiry Officer’s decision clearing him of those allegations.
Court confirms misconduct towards police
The court reached a different conclusion on Charges 1 and 2.
After examining the oral and documentary evidence, the Bench found sufficient material to uphold the allegations concerning the officer’s treatment of the police personnel.
The police had stopped the vehicle while carrying out their official duties. The officers had also expressed regret after discovering the identity of the judicial officer.
The High Court held that the officer should have cooperated with the police instead of responding in a rude and discourteous manner.
