RT-561: Public Services – Sri Pilla Rama Rao, Superintendent VI Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Visakhapatnam (Retd.) – Disciplinary proceedings – Final orders – Issued.

GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ABSTRACT Public Services – Sri Pilla Rama Rao, Superintendent VI Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Visakhapatnam (Retd.) – Disciplinary proceedings – Final orders – Issued. LAW (LA &J – HOME – COURTS.D) DEPARTMENT G.O.RT.NO: 561 DATE:21-03-2012, Read: From the District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, Letter dated: 26-10-2009. *** ORDER: The District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam in the letter read above submitted the relevant material relating to a regular departmental enquiry conducted against Sri Pilla Rama Rao, Superintendent, VI Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Visakhapatnam (formerly worked as Superintendent at Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gajuwaka) for necessary orders, since the charged employee was permitted to retire from service on 30-06-2009, on attaining the age of superannuation, subject to the conditions laid down in rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980. 2. The article of charge framed against Sri P.Rama Rao, vide. Proceedings of the District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, vide. Order DE No.9-A/2008, dt:23-06-2008 is as follows:- Article of charge:- “That you Sri Pilla Rama Rao, while functioning as Superintendent, Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gajuwaka during the period from 9.10.2006 to 2.7.2007, were entrusted with the dealing and checking of suits, appeals, CMAs and etc. and that he had full access with the suit records and petitions being filed in the court for checking and numbering at the relevant time and that you have received the unregistered suit record filed by Sri M. Appla Naidu, R/o. Kanithi village, Visakhapatnam on 9.8.2004 through his advocate, Sri K.V.Swamy, bearing GR Nos. 3256, 3256-A and 3257 for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,28,995/- being the principal and interest due on pro- note and for the costs of the suit and that you failed to account for the said suit record and misplaced / lost the same and failed to trace out the suit record, though number of opportunities were given to you and successfully protracted the matter for long time, thus you are responsible for missing of the record filed in the above G.R.Nos and thereby you have exhibited misconduct and gross neglect of duties and caused loss to the party concerned, which act or acts if proved or established would amount to serious misconduct and gross neglect in discharging official duties and contravention of Rule 3 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and liable for disciplinary action as per Andhra Pradesh Civil Service (CCA) Rules, 1991.” 3. The Enquiry Officer appointed in District Court’s Proceedings Order D.E.No.9-A/2008 dt. 10.12.2008, to enquire into the charge framed, submitted the report dt:22-08-2009, holding that the delinquent is guilty of the charge leveled against him on a consideration of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, and for the reasons as set out in the report. 4. Government after examining the entire material, particularly the statements of the defence witnesses about their searching for the file and bringing it to the notice of Senior Civil Judge on the same day; non-examination of the then Presiding Officer of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, by the Enquiry Officer, as regards to what exactly transpired on the day of filing the suit in question and on the next day as to whether the Presiding Officer informed the Advocate about the missing of the said file; the inconvincing statement of one Sri Srinivas Rao who is said to have made G.R. entries relating to the files in question for his failure either to obtain the acknowledgement of the charged officer in the register or to report the same to the Presiding Officer; the statement of the Prosecution Witness about the compromise arrived outside the Court in connection with the suit amount and the compromise with the accused in N.I.Act case in appeal, besides the explanation submitted by the charged officer, is, of the opinion that viewed from any angle, the finding tendered and the conclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Authority that the guilt is proved is without(P.T.O.) :: 2 :: proper process of reasoning based on appreciation of material available on record and therefore considers that the material on record is not convincing to hold that the charge framed against the charged officer is proved and accordingly Sri Pilla Rama Rao is exonerated from the charge framed against him, under rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980. 5. The District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam is requested to take necessary further action in the matter. (BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA PRADESH) A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AND JUSTICE. To The District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. The Individual through District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. The Accountant General, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. The Pay & Accounts Office, Hyderabad. Copy to: The Finance (Expr. H&L) Department. SF/SC. // FORWARDED::BY ORDER // SECTION OFFICER.