THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. Nos. 26338 of 2001 & 21491 of 2002 and C.C. No. 1258 of 2003 Common order: Since both the writ petitions and the contempt case are inter- connected, and arise out of dispute between the same parties, they are disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioner is a Lecturer of Commerce in respondent No.4, namely P.B. Siddhartha College of Arts and Science (hereinafter referred to as ‘the College’). While working as such, on the ground of ill-health, he went on leave in the year 1989. However, when he reported for duty on 25.06.1992, respondent No.4-College did not allow him to join duty. The petitioner, therefore, made representation to respondent No.3, namely, the Regional Joint Director of Higher Education, who vide orders dated 27.12.1993, directed respondent No.4-College to allow the petitioner to join duty. However, respondent No.4-College did not allow the petitioner to join duty, and instead framed charges, conducted enquiry, and by order dated 11.11.1995 terminated his services. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal, and respondent No.1-Government having conducted enquiry, passed orders in G.O. Rt. No. 939, Education (CE.II.1) Department, dated 12.08.1999, directing his reinstatement into service and leaving it open to respondent No.4-College to initiate fresh enquiry into the lapses, if any. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner reported to duty, but respondent No.4-College did not permit him to join duty, and instead filed a petition on 20.09.1999 before respondent No.1-Government to review their orders in G.O. Rt. No. 939, dated 12.08.1999. Respondent No.1-Government, vide orders dated 14.02.2000, dismissed the same. Pursuant thereto, petitioner reported to duty, but respondent No.4-College did not permit the petitioner to join duty, and instead filed writ petition in W.P. No. 4293 of 2000, questioning G.O. Rt. No. 939, dated 12.08.1999, issued by respondent No.1-Government. During the pendency of the said writ petition before this Court, the petitioner and respondent No.4-College entered into an agreement of compromise on 18.11.2000, and the writ petition by order dated 05.12.2000 was closed in terms of the said compromise. In pursuance of the above agreement of compromise, the petitioner joined duty in respondent No.4-College on 27.12.2000, and thereafter, vide representation dated 04.01.2001 requested respondent No.2, Commissioner of Collegiate Education, to treat the period from 01.07.1991 to 26.12.2000 as in service and revise his pay and fix the same in terms of UGC Scales of Pay, 1996. Respondent No.2 forwarded the same to respondent No.1-Government, who having considered the ramifications arising therefrom, issued G.O. Rt. No. 500, Higher Education (CE.II.1) Department, dated 07.07.2001, and directed respondent No.4-College to treat the aforesaid period of absence the petitioner as on duty and also fix his in terms of UGC Scales of Pay, 1996. Respondent No.4-College instead of implementing the orders issued by respondent No.1-Government in the said G.O., filed a review petition dated 20.09.2001 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the first review petition’) before respondent No.1- Government requesting them to expunge certain observations made against it in the G.O. Respondent No.1-Government, having considered the same, vide orders passed in Memo dated 16.11.2001 rejected the same, and directed respondent No.4-College to implement the orders issued by them in G.O. Rt. No. 500, dated 07.07.2001. However, respondent No.4-College without implementing the orders issued by respondent No.1-Government in G.O. Rt. No. 500, dated 07.07.2001, filed another review petition dated 11.12.2001 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the second review petition’) requesting respondent No.1-Government to nullify the relief granted to the petitioner in the above said G.O. While the said review petition filed by respondent No.4-College was pending before respondent No.1- Government, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 26338 of 2001 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the first writ petition’) seeking directions to respondent No.4-College to implement the orders issued by respondent No.1- Government in G.O. Rt. No. 500, dated 07.07.2001, and to further restrain respondent No.1-Government from canceling, reviewing or altering or modifying the said G.O. in any manner. The above writ petition was admitted on 27.12.2001, and while the same was pending before this Court, respondent No.1-Government having considered the second review petition filed by respondent No.4-College, passed orders in Memo dated 07.03.2002, keeping the earlier orders passed by them in the first review petition in Memo dated 16.11.2001, in abeyance. At that point of time, the petitioner filed petitions in W.P.M.P. Nos. 13513 and 14559 of 2002 – the former seeking directions to respondent No.4-College to send proposals to respondent No.1-Government with regard to payment of amounts as per the orders issued by respondent No.1-Government in G.O. Rt. No. 500, dated 07.07.2001, and the latter questioning the power of respondent No.1-Government in passing orders in the second review petition in Memo dated 07.03.2002, keeping its earlier orders passed in the first review petition in Memo dated 16.11.2001, in abeyance. This Court, having regard to the orders passed by respondent No.1-Government in G.O. Rt. No. 500 dated 17.07.2001, vide orders dated 07.08.2002, passed in W.P.M.P. No. 13513 of 2002, directed respondent No.4-College to send proposals to respondent No.1- College expeditiously, and in W.P.M.P. No. 14559 of 2002, passed interim orders suspending the orders passed by respondent No.1- Government in its Memo dated 07.03.2002. The petitioner states that respondent No.4-College instead of sending proposals to respondent No.1-Government, as directed by this Court, with a view to deny him the benefits, has sent incomplete proposals. Therefore, respondent No.2, vide proceedings dated 30.09.2002 directed respondent No.4- College to send proposals as per the revised UGC Scales of Pay, 1996. The petitioner states that respondent No.4-College again instead of sending the complete proposals, exerted influence on respondent No.1-Government and got issued orders in Memo dated 19.10.2002 directing respondent No.2, to visit the place where the petitioner is working, conduct detailed enquiry into the conduct of the petitioner and make specific recommendations to respondent No.1- Government on the aspect as to whether any amounts are payable to the petitioner as claimed by him. Assailing the said orders passed by respondent No.1-Government, as being illegal and arbitrary, and consequently to quash the same, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 21491 of 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the second writ petition’). During pendency of the first writ petition, the petitioner filed W.P.M.P. No. 16250 of 2003, and this Court by order dated 15.07.2003, disposed of the same directing respondent No.2, to process the proposals sent by respondent No.4-College and fix the quantum of amount to which the petitioner is entitled to, within a period of two weeks. Alleging that respondent No.2, has not complied with the said order, the petitioner filed contempt case in C.C. No. 1258 of 2003, praying to punish respondent No.2, for willful contempt of the orders of this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted assailing the order of his termination from service passed by respondent No.4- College, as approved by respondent No.2, the petitioner filed the first writ petition, which was allowed. Implementing the order passed by this Court in the first writ petition, respondent No.1-Government, issued orders in G.O. Rt. No. 939, dated 12.08.1999, directing respondent No.4-College to reinstate the petitioner into service with all monetary benefits. Even though respondent No.4-College assailed the said G.O. by filing W.P. No. 4293 of 2000, during the pendency of the same, respondent No.4-College entered into an agreement of compromise with the petitioner. Recording the said compromise, this Court by order dated 05.12.2000, closed the said writ petition. Pursuant to the compromise, the petitioner having joined duty made representation dated 04.01.2001, requesting to pay the revised Pay Scales of Pay, 1996. Respondent No.1-Government, having considered the said request, issued orders in G.O. Rt. No. 500, dated 07.07.2001, directing respondent No.4-College to treat the absence of the petitioner as on duty and fix his pay as per the revised Scale of Pay, 1996. To review the said G.O., respondent No.4-College filed the first review petition, but the same was rejected by respondent No. 1-Government vide orders passed in Memo dated 16.11.2001. In view of rejection of the first review petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.4-College, has no other option, except to send the proposals for implementation of the orders issued by respondent No.1- Government in the above G.O. and pay monetary benefits to the petitioner in terms therewith, and accordingly prayed that the first writ petition filed by the petitioner be allowed, and necessary directions be given to the respondents in that regard. He submitted that under the provisions of the A.P. Education Act, 1982, no second review petition is provided, and as such, respondent No.1-Government, could not have entertained the second review petition filed by respondent No.4-College, much less passed orders in the second review petition in Memo dated 07.03.2002, keeping the earlier orders passed the first review petition in Memo dated 16.11.2001, in abeyance, and more so without issuing any notice to the petitioner. He thus submitted that the said orders passed by respondent No.1-Government in the second review petition, being without jurisdiction, are liable to be set aside, and accordingly prayed for its quashing. He submitted that under the A.P. Education Act, 1982, respondent No.1-Government has no power or authority to order/take disciplinary action against a Lecturer working in a private aided institution, at best they can withhold the grant, and as such, he submitted that the orders issued by respondent No.1-Government in Memo dated 19.10.2002, directing respondent No.2, to enquire into the alleged conduct of the petitioner, and report as to whether any amount is payable to the petitioner for the leave period, cannot be sustained, and more so when respondent No.4-College terminated the service of the petitioner after conducting a departmental enquiry, which he successfully challenged in appeal resulting in issuance of G.O. Rt. No. 939, dated 12.08.1999. Hence, he submitted that orders passed by respondent No.1-Government in Memo dated 19.10.2002 assailed by him in the second writ petition be quashed, and the said second writ petition be allowed. He submitted that since respondent No.2 had deliberately failed to implement the orders dated 15.07.2003 passed by this Court in W.P.M.P. No. 16250 of 2003 in W.P. No. 26338 of 2001, he is liable for contempt of the orders of the Court, and prayed that he be punished. Official respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed detailed counters. The learned Government Pleader for Higher Education appearing on their behalf did not dispute the factual aspects, as stated above, but submitted that under Section 91 of the A.P. Education Act, 1982, respondent No.1-Government has the power to review its own orders at any time either suo motu or on an application received from any person interested, and in exercise of such power, respondent No.1- Government, had entertained the second review petition filed by respondent No.4-College and passed orders therein in Memo dated 07.03.2002, keeping its earlier orders passed in the first review petition in Memo dated 16.11.2001, in abeyance. He further submitted that since it was pointed out by respondent No.4-College in the second review petition that the petitioner did not attend to duty for the period from 01.07.1991 to 26.12.2000, he is not entitled to any relief for the said period, and therefore, respondent No.1-Government have decided to review its earlier orders passed in the first review petition, and having reviewed the same, passed orders in the second review petition in Memo dated 07.03.2002. Hence, he submitted that no fault can be found with the orders passed by respondent No.1-Government in the second review petition filed by respondent No.4-College, vide Memo dated 07.03.2002. Respondent No.4-College even though filed detailed counter, but the learned Standing Counsel appearing on its behalf them submitted that since the petitioner has entered into an agreement of compromise dated 18.12.2000 giving up his claim against respondent No.4-College, he is not entitled to seek any relief/payment of any amounts as per the orders issued by the Government in G.O. Rt. No. 500, dated 07.07.2001. He submitted that respondent No.4-College has no objection if respondent No.1-Government pays the amounts to the petitioner as per its orders issued in G.O. Rt. No. 500, dated 07.07.2001, without effecting any deductions from the amounts to be paid by respondent No.1-Government to respondent No.4-College towards grant-in-aid. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4-College. The petitioner, while working as Lecturer of Commerce in respondent No.4-College, on the ground of unauthorized absence, was terminated from service. The said termination order received the approval of the Regional Joint Director of Higher Education. Assailing the said order of termination, as approved by the Regional Joint Director of Higher Education, the petitioner filed appeal before respondent No.1-Government. Respondent No.1-Government, having examined the appeal, vide orders passed in G.O. Rt. No. 939, Education (CE.II.1) Department, dated 12.08.1999, allowed the same, and directed respondent No.4-College to reinstate the petitioner into service and granted them liberty to initiate fresh action against the petitioner for his frequent leaves. To review the said orders, respondent No.4-College filed review petition, but the same was rejected by respondent No.1-Government vide orders passed in Memo dated 14.02.2000. However, respondent No.4-College without reinstating the petitioner into service, assailed the orders issued by respondent No.1-Government in the above G.O. Rt. No. 939, dated 12.08.1999, by filing writ petition in W.P. No. 4293 of 2000 before this Court. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioner and respondent No.4-College on 18.11.2000 entered into an agreement of compromise, the terms of which are as follows: 1. The party of the first part (respondent No.4-College) hereby agrees to withdraw W.P. No. 4293/2000 filed by them and now pending before the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. 2. The party of the second part herein (petitioner) undertakes that he would not claim any arrears of salary from the party of the first part for the period from 24.6.1992 till he is taken into service pursuant to this agreement. 3. The party of the first part undertakes to take into service the party of the second part forthwith. 4. The party of the first part treats the entire matter as closed and undertakes not to initiate any fresh action against the party of the second part for the alleged unauthorized absence etc. Thus, it is agreed that there shall not be any initiation of disciplinary action against the said respondent for the alleged period of absence. 5. Both the parties shall bear their costs in the writ petition. 6. The party of the second part hereby assures the party of the first part that he will discharge his duty as expected of him. 7. Each term of the above is a consideration for the other. Recording the above said agreement of compromise, this Court vide orders dated 05.12.2000 closed the writ petition. Pursuant to the above agreement of compromise, the petitioner made a request to respondent No.2-, for treating the period from 01.07.1991 to 26.12.2000 as on duty and pay him all consequential benefits fixing his pay as per the revised UGC Scales of Pay, 1996. Accordingly, respondent No.1-Government, having considered the said proposals in the light of the recommendations made by respondent No.2, passed orders in G.O. Rt. No. 500, Higher Education (CE.II.1) Department, dated 07.07.2001, directing that the period from 01.07.1991 to 26.12.2000 during which period the petitioner was out of service, be treated as on ‘duty’ with all consequential benefits along with fixation of pay as per the revised UGC Pay Scales, 1996. This G.O. was issued by respondent No.1-Government in concurrence with the Finance & Planning Department vide their letter dated 24.05.2001. However, respondent No.4-College instead of implementing the said G.O., filed first review petition before respondent No.1-Government on 20.08.2001 and requested them to expunge certain remarks/observations made against it. However, respondent No.1-Government, vide orders passed in Memo dated 16.11.2001, rejected the first review petition and directed respondent No.4-College to implement the orders issued by them in G.O. Ms. No. 500, dated 07.07.2001. Pursuant to the above orders, the petitioner requested respondent No.4-College to implement the orders issued by respondent No.1-Government in G.O. Rt. No. 500, dated 07.07.2001. However, as respondent No.4-College without implementing the said orders, filed second review petition before respondent No.1- Government on 11.12.2001, the petitioner filed writ petition in W.P. No. 26338 of 2001, seeking directions to respondent No.4- College to implement the orders issued by respondent No.1- Government in G.O. Ms. No. 500, dated 07.07.2001. While so, respondent No.1-Government passed orders in the second review petition in Memo dated 07.03.2002, keeping the orders passed by them in the first review petition in Memo dated 16.11.2001, in abeyance. At that point of time, the petitioner filed petitions in W.P.M.P. Nos. 13513 and 14559 of 2002 in W.P. No. 26338 of 2001 – seeking directions to respondent No.4-College to send proposals as per the orders issued by respondent No.1-Government in G.O. Rt. No. 500, dated 07.07.2001 and further to suspend the operation of the orders passed by respondent No.1-Government in Memo dated 07.03.2002. This Court by order dated 07.08.2002 allowed the said petitions granting directions as prayed for. Respondent No.1-Government, in compliance of the above said orders of this Court, passed orders in Memo dated 19.10.2002, while awaiting for the proposals from respondent No.4-Government, directed respondent No.2, to enquire into the conduct of the petitioner at the place where he worked, namely respondent No.4-College, and make specific recommendations as to whether any amount is payable to the petitioner for the leave period claimed as leave. Assailing the said orders passed by respondent No.1-Government in Memo dated 19.10.2002, the petitioner filed writ petition in W.P. No. 21491 of 2002. It is the contention of respondent No.1-Government that since the petitioner did not work for the period between 01.07.1991 to 26.12.2000, he is not entitled to salary for the said period. Even though respondent No.1-Government had passed orders in Memo dated 16.11.2001, rejecting the request made by respondent No.4- College in the first review petition to expunge certain remarks/observations made by it in G.O. Rt. No. 500, dated 07.07.2001, but since the said factum was not brought to the notice of respondent No.1-Government earlier, respondent No.1-Government, entertained the second review under Section 91 of the A.P. Education Act, 1982. Accordingly, having reviewed the orders passed by them in the first review petition in Memo dated 16.11.2001, issued revised orders in the second review petition vide Memo dated 07.03.2002, keeping the earlier orders passed in the first review petition, in abeyance, and as such, he contends that no fault can be found by the action of respondent No.1-Government in entertaining the second review and passing the impugned orders dated 07.03.2002. I am unable to agree with this contention of respondent No.1- Government. Respondent No.1-Government while issuing G.O. Rt. No. 500, dated 07.07.2001, have taken note of the orders issued by them in G.O. Rt. No. 939, dated 12.08.1999, the orders passed by them in Memo dated 14.02.2000, rejecting the review petition filed by respondent No.4-College seeking review of the orders issued in the said G.O., the agreement of compromise dated 18.11.2000, entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.4-College, wherein the petitioner undertook not to claim arrears of salary from respondent No.4-College, the orders dated 05.12.2000 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 4293 of 2000 (filed by respondent No.4-College assailing the orders issued in G.O. Rt. No. 939, dated 12.08.1999), which was disposed recording the agreement of compromise dated 19.11.2000, the request made by the petitioner dated 04.01.2001 for treating the period from 01.07.1991 to 26.12.2000 as on ‘duty’ and the recommendations made in that regard by respondent No.2, vide his letter dated 01.05.2001, have ordered that the period from 01.07.1991 to 26.12.2000 during which period the petitioner was out of service be treated as ‘duty’ with all consequential benefits along with pay fixation in revised UGC Pay Scales, 1996, and accordingly directed respondent No.2, to take necessary action in the matter. Thus, it is clear that respondent No.1-Government, had not only the knowledge about the claim made by the petitioner, but in fact, it had allowed the claim of the petitioner on the basis of the recommendations made by respondent No.2. This apart, respondent No.1-Government, have also vide orders passed in Memo dated 16.11.2001, have rejected the first review petition filed by respondent No.4-College, to review and expunge certain remarks/observations made against in G.O. Rt. No. 500, dated 07.07.2001. Respondent No.1-Government, having refused to expunge the remarks/observations made against respondent No.4-College, has again vide orders passed in Memo dated 03.12.2001, requested respondent No.4-College to submit proposals as requested by respondent No.2, in his proceedings dated 11.07.2001. Having rejected the request of respondent No.4-College for expunging of remarks/observations made against it in G.O. Rt. No. 500, dated 07.07.2001, for the reasons best known to them, have entertain the second review petition filed by respondent No.4-College, and passed orders in Memo dated 07.03.2002, keeping the orders passed by them earlier in the first review petition in Memo dated 16.11.2001, in abeyance. The learned Government Pleader except stating that the second review filed by respondent No.4-College was entertained by respondent No.1-Government in exercise of the power conferred under Section 91 of the A.P. Education Act, 1982, was unable to explain how respondent No.1-Government could have entertained a review petition for the second time, and allow the same without notice to the petitioner, and more particularly when it had rejected the first review petition, filed by respondent No.4-College, and directed it to implement the orders passed by them in G.O. Rt. No. 500, dated 07.07.2001. This apart, the power of respondent No.1- Government to entertain review under Section 91 of the A.P. Education Act, 1982, is justified only if the order sought to be reviewed was passed under any mistake, whether of fact or of law or in ignorance of any material fact. In the instant case, as discussed above, right from passing orders in G.O. Rt. No. 939, dated 12.08.1999, allowing the appeal filed by the petitioner against his order of termination passed by respondent No.4-College, as approved by respondent No.2, till 16.11.2001, when it rejected the first review petition and upheld its earlier orders, and rejected the requests of respondent No.4-College made from time to time, respondent No.1-Government, did not find any mistake either of fact or law. In fact, vide order dated 03.12.2001, respondent No.1-Government, have also directed respondent No.4- College to send proposals to respondent No.2, as requested by him vide his letter dated 11.07.2001. Respondent No.1-Government had passed all the aforesaid orders, upholding its actions on the basis of the material available before them, and having upheld all their orders passed from time to time, respondent No.1-Government, now cannot be allowed to contend that since the orders passed by them were under mistake of fact or in ignorance thereof, they are entitled to review their orders, much less by entertaining review petition for the second time. In that view of the matter, the orders passed by respondent No.1- Government in the second review petition in Memo dated 07.03.20002, keeping the orders passed by them in the first review petition in Memo dated 16.11.2001, in abeyance, cannot be sustained, and more so when no power is vested in respondent No.1-Government to review its orders passed earlier for the second time. Accordingly, the orders dated passed by respondent No.1-Government in the second review petition in Memo dated 07.03.2002, are set aside. Respondent No.1-Government purportedly in compliance of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.M.P. Nos. 13513 and 14559 of 2002 in W.P. No. 26338 of 2001, have passed orders in Memo dated 19.10.2002, directing respondent No.2, to enquire into the allegations made against the petitioner and make specific recommendations with regard to the payment claimed for the leave period. The said orders are subject matter of the second writ petition in W.P. No. 21491 of 2002, and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 failed to show any provision of law under the A.P. Education Act, 1982, which enables them to pass orders for enquiring into allegations made against employees belonging to private aided