THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No. 2818 OF 2005 ORDER: This writ petition has been preferred questioning the validity of the proceedings dated 29.11.2004 of the Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society, Hyderabad, through which proceedings the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner against the orders of punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect has been rejected. The writ petitioner while working as Principal of the Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society/Junior College, Kopperla of Vizianagaram District, he is alleged, to have committed certain irregularities. In specific, it is alleged that when the Deputy Secretary of the Society visited the school premises on 6.4.2002, the Principal was not available on duty having left the institution on 4.4.2002 at 11 AM by keeping the Physical Director as in-charge of the institution. It is also stated that the staff movement register is also not maintained in the institution. Based upon these allegations, he was initially placed under suspension on 9.5.2002. Subsequently, a charge memo was drawn on 17.7.2002. The 1st charge centers around the allegation that he left the institution on 4.4.2002 at 11 AM keeping the Physical Director as in-charge of the institution. It is alleged that the Principal has failed to take prior permission of the society while proceeding on leave and instead of keeping the Senior Teaching Staff member as in-charge principal, he has kept the Physical Director as in-charge Principal. The 2nd charge relates to his failure to maintain the staff movement register in the institution. The 3rd charge centers around his failure to allot the five staff quarters including the quarter for the Principal and the same were left unoccupied. Though the writ petitioner has filed a detailed reply on 1.8.2002 contesting the veracity of these allegations but, however, he has been imposed the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect by an order passed on 17.10.2002. He has preferred an appeal against this order. That appeal was considered by the Board of Governors of the respondent – school at their meeting held on 10.11.2004 and confirmed the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect and rejected the appeal. The writ petitioner has contested the basic fact that the Deputy Secretary of the society has not visited the school on 6.4.2002, but has visited the school only on 7.4.2002, which is a Sunday. It was further asserted that he has in fact signed the staff movement register putting the date 7.4.2002 therein. Though a detailed counter affidavit has been filed, asserting in paragraph (8) that the Deputy Secretary visited the institution on 6.4.2002, it would be appropriate to notice what has been stated immediately thereafter in the said counter affidavit: “… After examining the evidence submitted by the individual the Deputy Secretary signed on 7.4.2002 on attendance register and on duty staff movement register….” These two statements are slightly contradictory in terms and content. If the Deputy Secretary has visited the institution on 6.4.2002, he would have signed the attendance register and movement register on the said date. There is no necessity for him to visit the school again on 7.4.2002 only for the purpose of affixing the signature in the said register. If on the contrary, he has visited the institution on two separate dates i.e., on 6th April 2002 and 7th April 2002, there is no other material to indicate that he has visited the said school on 6.4.2010 as well. When the writ petitioner has disputed the very veracity of visit of the Deputy Secretary on 6.4.2002, both in his explanation dated 1.8.2002 as well as in appeal preferred on 5.12.2002, the same should have been dealt with by the authorities competent to impose the punishment as well as the appellate authority. Though I may not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that for imposition of minor punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect , an inquiry should have been conducted in the matter, but nonetheless when a serious question of fact is put in issue, the same should have been adverted to and at least the appellate authority should have returned a finding that the Deputy Secretary concerned has in fact visited the school on two occasions both on 6th and 7th April 2002. However, the fact remains that the writ petitioner has not seriously challenged the issue relating to his placing the Physical Director as in-charge of the Office of the Principal of the institution instead of keeping the senior most teaching member as in-charge Principal. Similarly, he has also not seriously disputed the other allegation that he has not allotted the five quarters including the Principal’s quarter to the staff members. Such a fact certainly causes financial strain to the society. Sri Durga Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the society has brought to my notice, proceedings dated 6.1.2006 regularising the period of suspension of the writ petitioner in terms of sub-rule (7) of Rule 54-B of Fundamental Rules. Learned counsel also submits that the writ petitioner has since retired from service and hence the cause in the writ petition would not survive for further adjudication. I am afraid that this contention of the learned Standing Counsel may not hold water for, if the two increments have not been restored to the petitioner in time, the same would have had some impact or the other on his post terminal benefits. On the contrary if they were promptly released after the expiry of the two year period, along with the rest of the normal increments inasmuch as the punishment order specifically says that the increments have been stopped without cumulative effect, it would be a simple case of loss of few hundred rupees. In view of the dispute touching upon the fact whether the Deputy Secretary of the society has visited the institution on two days viz., 6th or 7th April 2002 or only on one day on 7th April 2002 as contended by the writ petitioner, the quantum of punishment may vary. Therefore, I consider it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of confirmation of the punishment by the Board of Governors of the institution and they are required to reconsider the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner on 5.12.2002 and pass appropriate orders, containing sufficient and valid reasons for rejection of the appeal of the petitioner. This exercise may be completed within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt of this order and communicate the same to the writ petitioner. It is needless to observe that in case the appeal is allowed by the Board of Governors, the differential amount is to be worked out and be paid within a period of two months thereafter. With this and to the extent indicated supra, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J knk 15th November 2010