IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4733 of 2008 Between: Koppu Ramesh, S/o. Guruvaiah, A.P. Social Welfare Residential School (Boys), BHONGIR, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P. Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutional Society, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, rep by its Secretary. 2 The Principal, AP Social Welfare Residential School (Boys) BHONGIR, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order declaring the proceedings Rc.No. Z-IV/G2/13790/2004, dated 28-1-2008 and Articles of Charge in Memo Rc.No. Z-IV/G2/13790/2004, dated 12-2-2008 issued by the first respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice, and consequently set aside the same with further direction to continue the services of the petitioner as Resident Teacher (English) in terms of G.O.Ms.No.59, dated 10-8-2007, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.VISWANATHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.K.DURGA PRASAD The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4733 of 2008 ORDER: The first respondent issued a notification in the year 2002, inviting applications for appointing teachers in different subjects, on contractual basis. For the post of teacher in English, post-graduation with B.Ed., was prescribed as the qualification. Petitioner applied for the same and accordingly was selected and appointed, vide proceedings dated 09.11.2002. It is represented that the first respondent is contemplating regularization of teachers, who were appointed on contractual basis. Verification of genuinity of the certificates and other information relating to the concerned candidates is undertaken. Petitioner was issued a show-cause notice-cum-charge memo, dated 28.01.2008, wherein it was pointed out that the B.Ed., certificate, produced by the petitioner, is not genuine. Alleging that the petitioner had resorted to acts of misconduct, the first respondent required the petitioner to explain as to why disciplinary action shall not be taken against him, apart from instituting proceedings under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Petitioner submitted his explanation on 09.02.2008, and the domestic enquiry is in progress. Petitioner states that he approached an institution, by name Gora, in the year 1995, with a view to pursue B.Ed., course, through distance education, at Annamalai University, and himself was shocked to know that the certificate issued to him was not genuine. He contends that the first respondent itself has taken steps to regularize the services of all the contractual employees, and in the process, has granted four years time to the candidates to fulfill the eligibility criteria and in that view of the matter, the present disciplinary proceedings cannot be continued. Heard Sri Viswanatha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Durga Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The writ petition cannot be entertained for more reasons, than one. Firstly, petitioner cannot be said to have suffered any grievance on account of mere initiation of disciplinary proceedings into the allegation of submitting a forged certificate. Secondly, this Court does not find any basis to stall the disciplinary proceedings. Neither any grounds of lack of jurisdiction, nor any serious infirmity in the disciplinary proceedings is pointed out. Petitioner can be said to have suffered grievance, only if any order, adverse to his interest, is passed, at the culmination of the domestic enquiry. Petitioner apprehends that even while the disciplinary proceedings are pending, criminal proceedings may be instituted against him. Such virtuality would arise if only a finding in the enquiry is given, to the effect that the petitioner had deliberately filed forged certificate. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy, in the event of any order, adverse to his interest, being passed. It is directed that the respondents shall not institute any criminal proceedings against the petitioner, before the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 07.03.2008 Note: Furnish C.C by 10.03.2008. (B/o) sh