HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL No.138 of 2011 Date: 22.03.2011 Between: G. Pulla Reddy Engineering College (Autonomous), Kurnool, rep. by its Principal ….Appellant. And: R. Revanth Kumar and another …..Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL No.138 of 2011 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Prakash Rao) Heard Sri Meharchand Nori, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, Sri J. Janakirami Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent and at the request of the parties, the main appeal itself has taken up for disposal at the admission stage. The 1st respondent herein is the petitioner in W.P.No.16914 of 2010 which was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus to declare the impugned proceedings dated 1.6.2010 issued by the appellant herein awarding punishment of rustication of the petitioner from the college for one academic year i.e., 2010-2011 and further debarring the petitioner from writing of any examinations during October, 2010 and April, 2011 as arbitrary, illegal and consequently to set aside the same. The learned single Judge after hearing both sides, allowed the writ petition by setting aside the impugned proceedings only to the extent of debarring the petitioner from the examinations to be held in April, 2011 and further directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to write the backlog examinations, in the ensuing examinations to be held in April, 2011 or at any other point of time. Aggrieved by the same, the 2nd respondent therein has preferred the present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The learned counsel for the appellant has pleaded that their college awarded punishment of rustication from the college for one academic year i.e., 2010-2011 and debarring the petitioner from writing the examinations during October, 2010 and April, 2011 for the offences of malpractices, fraud and committing impersonation by the 1st respondent herein while writing the final year exams of 2nd year B. Tech II Semester examinations. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, has pleaded that the 1st respondent was not given any notice for submitting his explanation before taking the disciplinary action for the alleged malpractice, fraud and impersonation and therefore the learned single Judge has rightly set aside the impugned proceedings of the appellant herein and the same cannot be interfered with by this Court. It is well settled that the principles of natural justice should not be violated and the 1st respondent herein should be given an opportunity of hearing by issuing notice to him. Admittedly, the appellant has not issued any such notice to the 1st respondent herein before imposing the punishment and therefore, the appellant has violated the principles of natural justice. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any merits in this appeal and we hold that an opportunity should be given to the 1st respondent by issuing the notice for hearing him about the alleged allegations and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. However, it is open for the parties to take appropriate action in accordance with law. No order as to costs. ______________________ B. PRAKASH RAO,J. _____________________ P.DURGA PRASAD,J. Date: 22.03.2011. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL No.138 of 2011 Date:22.03.2011 Gk.