THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PEITION No. 5878 of 2010 Between: Merugu Rajeshwar S/o Rajanna aged 46 years ..... PETITIONERS AND The District Educational Officer, Nizamabad District , Nizamabad and three others .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition has been field in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in connection with the orders dated 3.11.2009 passed in O.A No. 5914 of 2006 on the file of A.P. Administrative Tribunal. Hyderabad. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher after due process of selection on 4.3.1997 and he was allotted to Zilla Parishad, Nizamabad by the District Educational Officer, Nizamabad District. While so, it is stated that the petitioner was falsely implicated in a Criminal Case No. 59 of 2000 on the allegation that he secured bogus B.Ed certificate and got employment on that basis. Thereafter, he was kept under suspension by order-dated 28.2.2001 of the DEO, Nizamabad. Aggrieved by the said suspension orders, the petitioner filed O.A.No. 2161 of 2001 for reviewing the suspension orders and the Tribunal disposed of the said O.A on 23.11.2001 reviewing the suspension orders within a period of four weeks. It is stated that the petitioner filed another O.A.No. 5236 of 2004, seeking a direction from the respondents to pay subsistence allowance. The Tribunal vide orders dated 15.9.2004 issued direction directing the respondents to pay subsistence allowance with arrears within a period of six weeks. As the respondents did not obey the orders dated 15.9.2004, petitioner filed C.A.No. 1045 of 2004 and the same was admitted on 25.11.2004. It is also stated that the respondents passed orders on 1.12.2004 terminating the services of the petitioner without conducting any enquiry under CCA Rules. That termination order is challenged by the petitioner in O.A.No. 7097 of 2004 and the Tribunal vide its orders dated 3.1.2005 set aside the termination orders. In spite of setting aside the termination orders, respondents are not reinstated and continuing the petitioner in service. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed O.A.No. 5914 of 2005 seeking reinstatement with continuity of service with all consequential benefits and the same was dismissed by the Tribunal vide orders dated 3.11.2009. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner being a permanent Government employee his services should not be discontinued without following due process of law prescribed under Rule 8(4) of CCA & Conduct Rules. He also contended that unless and until charges are framed and proved, the authorities ought not to have passed the orders of termination. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Education contended that the order passed by the Tribunal is based on facts and there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides. For ready reference, Rule 8(4) of the CCA & Conduct Rules reads as under: “8(4) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a Government servant is set aside or declared or rendered void, in consequence of or by a decision of a court of law and the authority competent to impose the penalty, on a consideration of the circumstances of the case, decides to hold a further inquiry against him on the allegations on which the penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement was originally imposed, the Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the authority competent to impose the suspension from the date of the original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders: Provided that no such further inquiry shall be ordered unless it is intended to meet a situation where the Court has passed an order purely on technical grounds without going into the merits of the case.” In view of the above rule position, we are not inclined to go into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations inasmuch there is a specific allegation that the petitioner has obtained employment by producing a fake certificate. Therefore, that aspect has to be gone into by the competent authority by conducting due enquiry. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, we direct the authority concerned to conduct and conclude the enquiry within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ___________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J Dt. 15.3.2010 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies