IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 163 of 2002 Between: 1 The Asst.Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Hyderabad Region, Picket, Secunderabad. 2 The Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangath,18,Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh ,March, New Delhi. 3 The Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1, Golconda , Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Ms.A.Savithri Devi, D/o. late A.Purnachandra Rao, Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1, Golconda, Hyderabad. 2 M.Vasudev, NFC Nagar, Ghatkesar, Ranga Reddy district Not necessay. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of CERTIORARI to call for the records in O.A.No.1586/2000 dt.13-9-2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, and quash the same. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.B.NARASIMHA SARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.AMBADIPUDI SATYANARAYANA The Court made the following : O R D E R:- (per GM,J) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking certiorari to quash the order dated 13.9.2001 passed in O.A.No.1586 of 2000 on the ﬁle of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad. Brief facts of the case are that one A.Savithri Devi, who is the 1st respondent, is a Post Graduate Teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and she was issued a Memorandum of Charges dated 14.6.1999 under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. She submitted her explanation, dated 29.6.1999 to the Charge Memo. The disciplinary authority, after considering the explanation, ordered enquiry into the charges and the Enquiry Oﬃcer, vide his report, held that Articles (vii) & (viii) of Charges were proved against the individual. The relevant Articles of Charges are reproduced hereunder: “Article (vii):- That Miss.A.Savitridevi, PGT (English) under suspension while working at Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1, Golconda, Hyderabad did not maintain absolute integrity and acted in a way unbecoming an employee of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan by writing threatening letters to higher authorities without routing them through proper channel and thereby violated Rule 3(1)(i) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 as extended to the employees of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. Article (viii):- That Miss.A.Savitridevi, PGT (English) under suspension while working at Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1, Golconda, Hyderabad did not maintain absolute integrity and acted in a way unbecoming an employee of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan by implicating eleven staﬀ members in her letter to the Chairman, VMC, in which she threatened of committing suicide or self immolation and thereby violated Rule-3(1) (i) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 as extended to the employees of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan” The 1st respondent, after receipt of the enquiry report, made a representation, dated 20.12.1999. The Disciplinary Authority, after considering all the material on record including her representation, awarded punishment of reduction of pay by two stages by his proceedings dated 10.1.2000. When the 1st respondent preferred an appeal, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal conﬁrming the order of the disciplinary authority. Thereafter, the 1st respondent ﬁled O.A.No.1586 of 2000 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, and the Tribunal allowed the O.A. holding that the report of the Enquiry Oﬃcer is wholly perfunctory and the appellate authority also has not considered the evidence on record but only conﬁrmed the order of the disciplinary authority. Now, the petitioners’ main grievance is that though the appellate authority conﬁrmed the order of the disciplinary authority, the Tribunal, misconstruing the provisions of Sub-Rule 18 of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, allowed the O.A. quashing the order of the disciplinary authority. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the 1st respondent polluted the atmosphere of the school by making complaints against eleven teachers by way of threatening the staﬀ with dire consequences and also made a representation to the Chairman, Vidyalaya Management Committee and the language used therein is very harsh. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has contended that when the 1st respondent wanted to give an explanation, she was not allowed by the staﬀ to enter the room of the authority concerned. It is only in those circumstances she emphatically denied all the charges made against her and stated that the Tribunal considered all these aspects and rightly adjudicated the matter in her favour. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record, we are of the considered opinion that the 1st respondent submitted nine-pages explanation to the charges under Articles (vii) and (viii), from which it is clear that she had not intended to threaten or implicate the staﬀ members and her explanation reveals that she had to send the letter to the Chairman bringing out all her grievances. Thus, she had ﬂatly denied all the charges made against her. The Tribunal found that there is no material against the 1st respondent. In this regard, the Tribunal observed that in the absence of any material against the 1st respondent, the reply given to the questions posed against her as per Sub-Rule-18 of Rule 14, cannot be taken as substantive piece of evidence and to treat it as an admission of the charge. Thus, the Tribunal found the report of the Enquiry Oﬃcer as wholly perfunctory. Under those circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly allowed the O.A.No.1586 of 2000 and the order of the Tribunal does not suﬀer from any legal inﬁrmities warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the result, this writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 25th August, 2008 _____________________ C.V. RAMULU, J. bcj