IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.12285 of 2000 Date:30.09.2010 Between: S. Manohar .....Petitioner. AND The Principal Secretary, Government of A.P., Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 2 others. ....RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.12285 of 2000 ORDER: 1. The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a writ of Certiorari to call for records in the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 12.04.1999, as confirmed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings dated 07.06.1999, and to declare the action of the respondents in dismissing the petitioner from service as arbitrary, illegal, and to consequently reinstate him into service with all benefits. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Post Graduate Teacher on 03.08.1993 and posted at Medepalli, Karimnagar District. His wife was working as a Village Development Officer at Huzurabad in Karimnagar District. The petitioner claims to have made a request to the 2nd respondent to transfer him to a place near where his wife was working and, accordingly, he was posted at Karimnagar on 16.07.1994. While the petitioner was working at Karimnagar, he was transferred vide proceedings dated 18.07.1995 to Mudhele, Adilabad District. He filed W.P.No.1784 of 1995 before this Court and obtained interim orders and, in the light of the interim orders passed in WPMP No.21812 of 1995, he was continued at Karimnagar. Thereafter, on the interim order being vacated, he was asked to report for duty at Mudhele on 02.10.1997. The petitioner claims that his health deteriorated; since the water did not suit him, he was constrained to proceed on medical leave at frequent intervals; and he had requested the respondent to transfer him to any other college in Karimnagar District. The respondents also seem to have granted him earn leave. 3. While matters stood thus the petitioner was informed, vide memo dated 27.09.1998, that he should report for duty. The petitioner claims to have reported for duty on 09.10.1998 and to have explained his health problems. He also claims to have approached the 3rd respondent; to have joined duty on 16.10.1998; to have worked till 02.12.1998; and, as his health was badly effected, he had applied for medical leave. 4. The 2nd respondent issued notice dated 28.12.1999 calling upon the petitioner to show-cause why he should not be terminated from service. The petitioner claims to have submitted his joining report to the 3rd respondent on 13.01.1999, and alleges that the 3rd respondent refused to permit him to join duty. He would assert that he was asked to sign an undertaking which he refused to do, but later was constrained to give such an undertaking on 25.02.1999 though had not availed any kind of leave, except on medical grounds without obtaining prior permission. The show- cause notice dated 28.02.1999 informed the petitioner that he was absent for a period of 248 days during which period he was working in a private college. The petitioner claims to have submitted an explanation on 10.03.1999. He again received a show-cause notice informing him that on 19.03.1999 a panchanama was conducted and the charges alleged in the show-cause notice were proved. He was asked to submit his explanation against the proposed punishment of dismissal from service. The petitioner submitted an explanation on 02.04.1999 denying the charges, but the 2nd respondent passed the order dated 12.4.1999 imposing on him the punishment of dismissal from service. 5. Sri M.L. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the major punishment of dismissal from service could not have been imposed on the petitioner without any enquiry being conducted in this regard, more so when he had denied the allegations of his having worked in a private college. 6. Sri K. Durga Prasad, learned standing counsel for the respondents would draw attention of this Court to the additional counter-affidavit and the documents annexed there to in support of his contention that the petitioner has been working in a private college for the past more than a decade. Learned counsel would submit that the endeavor of the petitioner to be stationed in Karimnagar District is only to enable him to claim salary in the respondents school, while actually working in a private college; poor students, belonging to the weaker sections of the society, are being deprived of the benefits of being imparted proper education because of the conduct of teachers such as petitioner who, while remaining in the services of the respondents’ school, choose to pursue other avocations in a private college only to augment their income; various notices were issued by the respondents calling upon the petitioner to join duty which elicited no response; and his claim of illness is only a ruse to come back to Karimnagar, so that he can be continue working in a private college thereat 7. If the averments in the counter-affidavit, and the documents annexed thereto, are true, it reflects the sorry state of affairs of education in rural and scheduld areas. Teachers, who are employed to impart education to the poor and the needy and are extended the benefit of higher pay scales than that of the teachers of other schools, choose to remain in service only to draw salary from such schools while imparting education in private colleges to augment their monthly income. The net result is that the poor and the needy do not have even the basic facilities of being imparted proper education resulting in their inability to have access to higher education for which a proper foundation is primary and secondary school education. While no sympathy can be shown to such teachers, who adopt such undesirable practices, it cannot also be lost sight of that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is that of dismissal from service which is the maximum punishment which can be imposed under the regulations. Minimum requirement of fair play, and compliance with principles of natural justice, would require that such a punishment should have been preceded by a departmental enquiry wherein the petitioner should have been afforded an opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses examined on behalf of the Management, and to adduce evidence in his defense, more so when the delinquent employee denied the charges alleged in the charge memo. The impugned order of punishment falls foul of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules of the respondents’ school which requires an enquiry to be held before the punishment of dismissal is imposed. The impugned order of punishment must, accordingly, be quashed. 8. In the light of the allegations that the petitioner was gainfully employed elsewhere in a private college, I consider it inappropriate to direct the respondents, as at present, to pay him back wages. The respondents shall, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, conduct a departmental enquiry affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, and shall, thereafter, take a decision thereupon in accordance with law. The notice of the enquiry shall be served at the address shown in the writ petition, inasmuch as Sri M.L.Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner, would state that the petitioner continues to reside at the very same address. If the petitioner does not respond to the notices, sent by registered post with acknowledge due, it is open to the respondents to proceed to hold an enquiry ex parte. Sri M.L.Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner, would assert that the petitioner will cooperate with any enquiry and would not drag on proceedings. Entitlement of the petitioner for back wages, from the date of his dismissal from service till the date of completion of the enquiry, will also be a matter which the disciplinary authority shall consider on completion of the departmental enquiry, and depending on its outcome. 9. The writ petition is, accordingly disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J September 30, 2010 Gk. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.12285 of 2000 Date:30.09.2010 Gk.