THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION Nos.12835 and 16926 of 1999 Dated: 30.08.2010 W.P.No.12835 of 1999 Between: Brother of St.Gabriel Educational Society, and another. .. Petitioners. And State of Andhra Pradesh Education (SE/PS) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others. .. Respondents. W.P.No.16926 of 1999 M.S. Rao. .. Petitioner. And The Correspondent, St.Alphonsus High School, Nalgonda, and others. .. Respondents. COMMON ORDER: Since both these writ petitions are interconnected, they are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as arrayed in W.P.No.16926 of 1999, in which petitioner is the employee and the 1st respondent is the management. It appears, the petitioner was initially appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in St. Alphonsus High School, Nalgonda, with effect from 01.06.1980 against an unaided vacancy, having been selected by a duly constituted Selection Committee, and subsequently he was absorbed in grant-in-aid post with effect from 10.02.1983. While that being so, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo dated 26.06.1995 alleging that he had exhibited grave misconduct by submitting a false complaint on 26.03.1995, signed by him and nine others of the said school, making serious allegations against Brother Mathew K.Alexander, the then Principal of the school, and when called upon to furnish the material that prima facie establish the allegations made by him against the then Principal, he failed to do so. Thereupon, a detailed enquiry was conducted and, ultimately, the petitioner was removed from service by order dated 23.04.1996. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the 3rd respondent- Regional Joint Director of School Education, A.P., Hyderabad, who allowed the appeal directing the management of the school to reinstate the petitioner into service, by order dated 09.06.1998. Challenging the said order, the management filed an appeal before the Government, and the Government, after detailed consideration of the matter, by its G.O.Ms.No.20, Education, dated 28.05.1999 upheld the order passed by the 3rd respondent. According to the petitioner, pursuant to issuance of said G.O.Ms.No.20, dated 28.05.1999, he submitted his joining report on 18.06.1999 to the 2nd respondent and requested to permit him to join duty, but no orders have been passed thereon. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No.16926 of 1999, seeking the relief of declaration that he is deemed to have joined duty with effect from 18.06.1999 in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.20, dated 28.05.1999 with all consequential benefits and other attendant benefits, whereas the management filed W.P.No.12835 of 1999 for a declaration that G.O.Ms.No.20, dated 28.05.1999, issued by the Government is arbitrary and illegal. While admitting W.P.No.12835 of 1999 on 25.06.1999, an order of interim suspension of operation of G.O.Ms.No.20, dated 28.05.1999, was granted. Learned counsel appearing for the management strenuously contended that as regards the conclusion of the 3rd respondent that prior permission of the competent authority as required under Section 79 (1) of the A.P. Education Act (for short ‘the Act’) was not obtained by the management before passing the order of removal of the petitioner, the law in this regard is well settled that there is no necessity of taking any prior permission as required under Section 79 (1) of the Act, while initiating disciplinary proceedings and dispensing with the services of any individual teaching or non-teaching staff of a minority institution, and, therefore, the said conclusion of the 3rd respondent does not stand scrutiny of law. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner used unparliamentary language against some lady teachers, Nuns, students etc., which is unprintable, and also was leading a batch of persons making all false allegations against some persons, including the then Principal, and the same was proved in the domestic enquiry. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner supported the order dated 09.06.1998 passed by the 3rd respondent in the appeal preferred by the petitioner and also the G.O. dated 28.05.1999 issued by the Government. According to the petitioner, the other employees, who along with him signed in the complaint made against the then Principal, were inflicted only with the punishment of stoppage of increments, whereas he has been discriminated by imposing the punishment of removal from service, without there being any serious allegations against him, and considering the same, the 3rd respondent directed the management to reinstate him into service, which was even upheld by the Government in the appeal filed by the management. A perusal of the order dated 09.06.1998 passed by the 3rd respondent as well as G.O.Ms.No. 20, dated 28.05.1999, issued by the Government also make it clear that both the 3rd respondent and the Government have taken note of the fact that eight teachers against whom similar charges were framed were spared and the petitioner and one another teacher were only imposed with the major punishment of removal from service and, therefore, they directed the management to reinstate the petitioner into service. This apart, the matter relates to the year 1988 and it is brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner attained the age of superannuation in the year 2008 itself. Considering all the aforesaid circumstances and to give a quietus to the litigation at this stage itself and to meet the ends of justice, the order of reinstatement passed by Regional Joint Director and as confirmed in G.O.Ms.No.20, dated 28.05.1999, is modified to that of reinstatement of petitioner into service with continuity of service, but without any backwages. Further, it is made clear that since the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation during pendency of these writ petitions, it shall be deemed that he retired from service while serving in St. Alphonsus High School, Nelgonda, and if there was any revision of pay scales during the period of his service, his pay shall be fixed in appropriate time scale and his pension and other retirement benefits shall be settled accordingly, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, W.P.No.16926 of 1999 is allowed to the extent indicated above, and W.P.No.12835 of 1999 is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 30.08.2010 v v