JUDGMENT
S.R.Nayak,J.
1. Heard both sides.
2 This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-delinquent being aggrieved by the order of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam – the second respondent herein and the order made by the High Court confirming the order of the learned District Judge and dismissing the appeal.
3 The matter relates to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner-delinquent. The petitioner while working as a Translator, on 10-9-1991 a charge sheet was issued to him alleging misconduct. The charges are as follows:
Firstly: The delinquent consistently exhibited a conduct of supine indifference, utter carelessness in not handing over charge of the case properties after he was transferred as Head Clerk from V & VIII Metropolitan Magistrate’s Courts, Visakhapatnam to his successors in spite of several directions and explanations called for by the concerned officers and the District Judge;
Secondly: The conduct of the delinquent exhibits gross indiscipline and carelessness towards his duties.
Thirdly: The conduct of the delinquent exhibits total disrespect towards the directions of the District Judge as well as the officers before whom he worked.
Fourthly: Due to the aforesaid non-handing over of properties for a very long period it is likely to lead to untold administrative difficulties and also it tampers with judicial work and thereby the delinquent behaved in such a manner not expected of an employee working in Judicial Department.
Fifthly: The conduct of the delinquent in not handing over the charge and also not complying with the directions of the officer is likely to cause indiscipline among other employees which is not expected of an Government employee.
4. The charges themselves do not contain all necessary facts. Therefore, it is necessary to briefly refer to the background facts that led to the framing of the charges against the petitioner.
5. The V Metropolitan Magistrate (formerly IX Additional Munsif Magistrate), Visakhapatnam vide his letter dated 16-8-1989 addressed to the learned District Judge reported that the petitioner, who was then working as Head Clerk in his court, did not completely handover the charge of the properties and that he also did not bring forward the pending items of the property to the current register and that in spite of notice issued to him and oral directions, the delinquent did not comply with the direction of the learned Magistrate. He requested the learned District Judge to direct the delinquent to handover the charge to his successor Sri B. Yethirajulu. This was followed by one more letter dated 12-9-1989 from the V Metropolitan Magistrate addressed to the learned District Judge reporting that the petitioner failed to handover certain furniture, such as, five chairs, three padlocks (one big and two small) and also other properties. Thereupon, the learned District Judge by his letter dated 19-9-1989 directed the petitioner to submit his explanation for not handing over the properties to his successor. The petitioner did not reply. Again on 11-12-1989, the learned District Judge issued a reminder to the petitioner-delinquent to submit his explanation to the earlier letter dated 19-9-1989. At this stage, the petitioner submitted an explanation on 18-12-1989, in which he stated that he requires sufficient manual assistance and he would handover the charge in one day if the same is provided to him. On 3-3-1990, the learned District Judge again directed the petitioner-delinquent to handover the charge. That was followed by another direction dated 12-6-1990. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 22-6-1990 again repeating the same request that he should be provided with manual help by engaging services of 5 to 6 labourers to assist him. After that event, the V Metropolitan Magistrate addressed a letter to the District Judge on 6-8-1990 reporting that despite several reminders and directions, the delinquent did not handover the charge. This led to one more letter from the District Judge on 10-8-1990 directing the petitioner to submit his explanation for the disobedience of the direction. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 30-8-1990 and the same was forwarded to the V Metropolitan Magistrate for remarks and the learned Magistrate in his remarks dated 3-6-1991 reported that till 3-6-1991 no efforts at all have been made by the delinquent to handover the charge. Under these circumstances, the above noted charges were framed against the petitioner.
From the enquiry report, it is seen that initially the petitioner-delinquent did not file any reply to the charge memo and he came forward to file his explanation only after some witnesses were examined.
6. Ms. M.Vidyavathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would strenuously contend that the evidence placed before the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority would go to show that the properties in question have been handled not only by the petitioner but also by several others and whenever there was a change in the post of Head Clerk, every incumbent took considerable time to handover the charge as born out from the records, but the disciplinary authority for the reasons best known to it proceeded against the petitioner alone departmentally not taking any action against the others. The learned counsel would also submit that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and accepted by the disciplinary authority cannot be sustained in the absence of supporting evidence.
7. We do not find any merit in this writ petition or in the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. As quite often said and reiterated that the scope of judicial review of disciplinary action falls within a narrow compass. The court cannot go into the sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence on the basis of which the findings are recorded in a disciplinary proceeding. The only thing to be seen by us is whether fair enquiry was conducted against the petitioner-delinquent in terms of the statutory rules and principles of natural justice and whether the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and accepted by the disciplinary authority are based on some legal evidence. It is not the case of the petitioner at all that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was in violation of the rules governing the enquiry or principles of natural justice.
8. We have carefully perused the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. There is voluminous substantive legal evidence to show that without any justification the petitioner refused to comply with the directions issued by the learned Magistrate in the first instance and that of the learned District Judge later. Repeated directions in writing as well as oral directions went in vain. The petitioner periodically came forward with untenable pleas and alibi not to comply with a simple direction issued by the learned District Judge. It is not that an official while handing over the charge to his successor should physically lift each and every article and hand it over to the successor. The conduct of the petitioner is totally objectionable. We do not find any substantive ground to interfere with the order made by the learned District Judge and affirmed by the High Court on administrative side.
9. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.