THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.184 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the order No.1398 of 2004, dated 30.12.2004 of the respondent-University, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice, and consequently to direct the respondent-University to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits. It appears initially the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Architecture in the respondent University by order dated 11.06.1985. Subsequently, he was promoted as Associate Professor in Architecture on 06.09.1994 and his services in that category were regularised on 01.02.1996. That being so, the petitioner was granted leave for one year 11 months to attend foreign assignment with Church of South India Institute of Technology (CSIIT), Secunderabad and he was on extraordinary leave for a period of two years seven months and continuously absent unauthorisedly from 06.03.2003. Therefore, he was issued with a notice dated 14.12.2004 informing that his request for sanction of lien on EOL for a period upto 31.12.2006 cannot be considered and directing him to report for duty at JNTU school of Planning & Architecture, Hyderabad on or before 28.12.2004. In spite of the same, the petitioner did not join the duty and sent a letter dated 27.12.2004 requesting the respondent University for extension of leave for foreign assignment upto 30.06.2005. Therefore, the matter was placed before the Executive Council of the respondent University and the Executive Council at its meeting held on 29.12.2004 resolved to terminate the services of the petitioner as Professor of Architecture from the University with effect from 16.02.2003 and accordingly passed the impugned order. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a permanent employee of the respondent University and therefore his services could not have been terminated by passing a resolution. He also contended that the respondent University acted totally in contravention of the settled principles of law and regulations envisaged under the First Statute of the University. The concept of termination with retrospective effect is not available either under the First Statute of the University or under any other rules or law governing the service conditions of the University employees. Even in case of unauthorised absence, the respondent University is required to conduct a departmental enquiry by providing an opportunity to be heard. The departmental enquiry comprises of issuance of charge sheet, calling for explanation and in case the explanation disputes the charge sheet, an enquiry is required to be conducted, and thereupon based upon the enquiry report, action under the regulations have to be taken against the delinquent employee. He further contended that the respondent University had not followed all these formalities and simply terminated the petitioner from service in pursuance of the resolution purported to have been passed by the University. Sri Abhishek Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University supported the impugned order and stated that the petitioner did not dispute as to his absenteeism and that in spite of sending several reminders to the petitioner asking him to join duty, he did not join duty and therefore the matter was placed before the Executive Council of the respondent University and the Executive Council as per the powers vested on it resolved to terminate the petitioner from service, and accordingly, terminated him from service. He further stated that though the petitioner is having an effective alternative remedy of appeal, he had not availed the same and straight away he approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable and sought for dismissal of the same. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the University has not committed any error calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 30.03.2010 va