THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.21131 OF 2008 DATED: 03.03.2010 Between Prof. A. Malla Reddy … Petitioner And 1. The Osmania University, Hyderabad., rep. by Its Registrar., and 4 others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.21131 OF 2008 ORDER : The petitioner is the Deputy Director of the 2nd respondent institute – The Regional Centre for Urban Environmental Studies (RCUES), Osmania University, Hyderabad. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner by the 1st respondent vide charge-sheets dated 11.6.2008 and 12.8.2008 as arbitrary, illegal, mala fide and unconstitutional and for consequential reliefs. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The material on record shows that the Ministry of Urban Employment and Poverty Alleviation in connection with the implementation of Swarna Jayanthi Shahari Rojgar Yojana (SJSRY) decided to comprehensively evaluate the progress of the scheme on All India basis. The task of evaluation of SJSRY in the country has been assigned to Human Settlement Management Institute (HSMI), New Delhi, and for the said purpose the 2nd respondent – RCUES, Hyderabad has been requested by the Union of India by letter dated 8.7.2004 to facilitate HSMI in the collection of secondary sources of data as well as conduct of field survey in Southern States i.e., Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka and Pondicherry. The writ petitioner, who is working as Deputy Director in RCUES, Hyderabad has been asked to take up the study in all the above States including field survey for data collection. It is not in dispute that the Union Territory of Pondicherry had also taken up a research study of evaluation on the implementation of SJSRY and the said work of evaluation on the implementation of SJSRY in the Union Territory of Ponicherry was also entrusted to RCUES, Hyderabad vide letter dated 8.8.2005 of the Pondicherry Urban Development Agency (PUDA). It was agreed upon that the cost of research study payable to RCUES shall be Rs.90,000/-. The material available on record also shows that one Professor D. Ravindra Prasad who was the Director of the 2nd respondent - RCUES, Hyderabad - proceeded on foreign service and there were some disputes with regard to the appointment of the in- charge Director. Ultimately, the said D. Ravindra Prasad retired from service in the month of October, 2004. Thereafter the 4th respondent herein, who was the Head of the Department of Public Administration of Osmania University at that time, held the post of in-charge Director of the 2nd respondent. Challenging his continuation as in-charge Director even after he was relieved as the Head of the Department, the petitioner filed W.P.No.27653 of 2005. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 10.03.2006 directing the Governing Council of the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.10.2004 as well as the claims of all the eligible and competent persons for appointment as in-charge Director within a period of eight weeks. Accordingly, the Governing Council in its meeting held on 4.5.2006 relieved the 4th respondent and appointed the Head of the Department of Public Administration as in-charge Director. It was also resolved by the Governing Council to advertise the post of Director and accordingly a notification was issued inviting applications for the post of Director. In the meanwhile the petitioner was agitating for his appointment as in-charge Director on the ground that he being the senior most professor available in the 2nd respondent - RCUES, Hyderabad - alone was entitled to hold the post of Director on regular or in-charge basis. It is alleged by the petitioner that the 4th respondent developed grudge against him since he was claiming the post of Director of the 2nd respondent and made a complaint to the Vice-Chancellor of 1st respondent University alleging misconduct and embezzlement of public funds. Pursuant thereto, a preliminary enquiry was ordered by the 1st respondent University and basing on the report of the enquiry committee, a show-cause notice dated 8.1.2007 was issued by the 1st respondent University calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for the following lapses besides recovery of amounts from him. “(i) PUDA has requested RCUES-OU to conduct a study on “Implementation of SJRSY in Union Territory of Pondicherry” and budged Rs.90,000/- for the project. Prof. A. Malla Reddy, Deputy Director of RCUES, has undertaken the project and submitted the report. Prof. Malla Reddy has requested and received Rs.75,000/- in cash from PUDA towards the cost of the project, but did not remit the cash to RCUES or accounted for the expenditure. Prof. Malla Reddy erred to that extent, (ii) Prof. Malla Reddy has taken an advance of Rs.70,000/- from RCUES to travel to New Delhi on official work. While setting the advance, Prof. A. Malla Reddy submitted a T.A. Bill claiming travel in AC2-Tier during his return journey from New Delhi to Hyderabad. Prof. A. Malla Reddy failed to substantiate this claim, suggesting it to be false.” Ultimately a charge-memo dated 11.6.2008 was issued by the 1st respondent proposing to hold an enquiry against the petitioner under Rule 7 of Osmania University Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1990 and calling upon the petitioner to submit his written statement of defence to the following charges: ( 1 ) Receipt of Rs.75,000/- from the Pondicherry Urban Development Authority (PUDA) and failure to properly account for it. (2) Wrongful claiming of T.A. from Delhi to Hyderabad. In the statement of Articles of Charges, it was explained that the petitioner had received Rs.75,000/- from PUDA against the study cost of Rs.90,000/- and he had neither reported to the office of the Director, RCUES, Hyderabad, about the receipt of money nor he had properly accounted for it. So far as the second charge, it was alleged that the petitioner had claimed T.A. for his return journey from New Delhi to Hyderabad on 23.01.2005 wrongfully though he did not travel on that day. Another charge memo dated 12.8.2008 was issued by the 1st respondent making some more allegations against the petitioner including that he had claimed T.A. & D.A. from PUDA stating that he had worked with local staff during public holidays and during the period when he was on casual leave. It was also alleged that he had drawn T.A. / D.A. from two different sources namely PUDA and RCUES for the same period. By subsequent proceedings dated 13.8.2008 the petitioner was informed that the 5th respondent herein was appointed as Enquiry Officer to hold enquiry into the allegations of fraud and dishonesty in claiming T.A. and D.A. without visiting places. Aggrieved by the above said charge memos dated 11.6.2008 and 12.8.2008 issued by the 1st respondent, the present writ petition is filed. It is primarily contended by the petitioner that the impugned action is vitiated by mala fides since the entire proceedings were initiated at the instance of the 4th respondent herein, who was occupying the post of the Director of the 2nd respondent Institute without any eligibility and who bore grudge against the petitioner since he was challenging before this Court t h e 4th respondent’s continuation as in-charge Director of RCUES, Hyderabad. It is pleaded by the petitioner that though the 4th respondent, who was holding the post of in-charge Director, was replaced by one M. Mutha Reddy - the Registrar of the University, subsequently the 1st respondent had again appointed the 4th respondent as in-charge Director, in spite of the fact that he was not qualified to hold the said post, and as on today the 4th respondent has been continuing as in- charge Director. It is further contended that both the charge-memos dated 11.6.2008 and 12.8.2008 were issued at the instance of the 4th respondent so as to enable the 4th respondent to occupy the post of Director by eliminating the petitioner, who was found to be eligible and qualified by the duly constituted Selection Committee in the interview held on 20.12.2007. While denying the allegations that the petitioner had claimed T.A. and D.A. without actually visiting the places in connection with the agreement with the PUDA for taking up the task of implementation / evaluation of SJSRY in the Union Territory of Pondicherry, it is contended that the study on implementation of SJSRY in the Union Territory of Pondicherry as per the agreement entered into between PUDA and RCUES was entirely different and in no way connected with study on evaluation of SJSRY in the five Southern States entrusted by the Union of India. It is further contended that the two assignments are to be made differently by visiting different places and the petitioner did not claim T.A. or D.A. bills with RCUES and PUDA in respect of common journies made in respect of two different studies. Thus it is contended that the charges levelled against the petitioner are baseless and motivated and the impugned disciplinary proceedings have been initiated only to defeat the legitimate rights of the petitioner to compete to the post of Director of the 2nd respondent – RCUES, Hyderabad. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent University, while reiterating the allegations made in the impugned charge memos, t h e plea of the petitioner that the impugned proceedings were motivated and at the behest of the respondent No.4 has been categorically denied. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent University vehemently contended that the writ petition itself is premature and the interference by this Court at this stage is not warranted on any ground whatsoever. It is further contended that as per the qualification prescribed in the notification for appointment to the post of Director, RCUES, Hyderabad, the petitioner is also eligible to apply and face the Selection Committee subject to the result of the pending writ petitions and subject to the disciplinary proceedings pending against him. The scope of judicial review while the departmental enquiry is still pending is extremely limited. As held by the Supreme Court in DY. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE v. K.S. SWAMINATHAN[1] at the stage of framing of charge the Court can only look into the nature of the charges i.e., whether the statement of facts and material in support thereof supplied to the delinquent officers would disclose the alleged misconduct. It is not open to the Court at that stage to go into the question whether the charges are true or not. In the instant case, the allegations made in the impugned charge memos dated 11.6.2008 and 12.8.2008 are specific and the statement of facts disclosed the alleged misconduct and dishonesty. However, the specific case of the petitioner is that the said allegations are absolutely without any basis since t h e two assignments i.e., the study to be conducted in respect of evaluation of SJSRY entrusted by the Union of India and implementation of SJSRY entrusted by the 3rd respondent (PUDA) are entirely different. It is a matter to be decided on production of the evidence before the Enquiry Officer and it is neither possible nor permissible for this Court to express any opinion at this stage. Hence, undoubtedly the interference by this Court in exercise of the judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is unwarranted at this stage. However, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner vehemently contended that the proceedings under the impugned charge memos have been initiated only to see that the petitioner is disqualified from the selections to the post of Director of RCUES, Hyderabad. While submitting that the petitioner is fully qualified and has satisfied the eligibility criteria under the notification dated 21.10.2009, the learned counsel further contended that there is absolutely no justification to disqualify the petitioner for appointment to the post of Director on the ground of pendency of a frivolous enquiry initiated under the impugned charge memos. It is to be noticed that W.P.No.24341 of 2009 filed by the petitioner challenging the notification dated 21.10.2009 on the ground that the eligibility criteria specified therein by the University was not in conformity with the eligibility criteria fixed by the Governing Council of RCUES, Hyderabad, has been disposed of by this Court today by a separate order, thereby setting aside the notification dated 21.10.2009 and directing the respondents to issue a fresh notification. There was also a direction by this Court to finalize the selection to the post of Director following due process of law within a period of 3 months. In the circumstances, there shall be a direction to the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the impugned charge memos following due process of law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. The selection to the post of Director of RCUES, Hyderabad in terms of the directions in W.P.No.24341 of 2009 shall be finalized only thereafter. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 03.03.2010 gbs [1] (1996) 11 SCC 498