HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.21995 of 2001 Date : 25-11-2010 Between : Dr.P.Rajya Lakshmi .. Petitioner And Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, rep. by its Registrar and 3 Others .. Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.21995 of 2001 ORDER: The petitioner, an Associate Professor in Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad has filed this Writ Petition challenging the order of the 1st Respondent in Memo No.52139/H.Sc/A2/2000, dated 27-06-2001, awarding punishment of censure and debarring the petitioner for promotion/appointment by transfer for one year, as illegal and also to direct the University to compensate by awarding exemplary costs for passing the impugned order and to fix the accountability on the Officer in passing the impugned order. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. It is the case of the petitioner that in order to attend 88th session of the Indian Science Congress at Delhi scheduled between 3rd and 7th January, 2001 on the invitation of the said organization, the petitioner sought earned leave from 2nd to 6th January, 2001 and to avail the Public Holiday on the 7th January by means of letter dated 08-12-2000 addressed to Associate Dean and Head, College o f Home Sciences. It appears that she had also made an application dated 08-06-2000 for seeking permission to avail earned leave for the same period. The Associate Dean issued permission in Procs.No.5/PG/Estt./2000, dated 18-12- 2000. On obtaining such leave, she proceeded to Delhi and participated in the conference. The 1st Respondent in the meanwhile, adverting to the letter of the petitioner, dated 18-12-2000 issued a Memo No.52139/H.Sc/A2/2001, dated 02-01-2001 stating that the petitioner need not participate in the conference and her participation was without proper permission of the university. She was therefore directed to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken. The petitioner submitted her explanation dated 09- 01-2001 in which she stated that she applied for earned leave sufficiently well in advance and she got the same sanctioned in advance and therefore there was no indiscipline attitude on her part. Not being satisfied with the said explanation, the 1st Respondent issued charge Memo No.52139/H.Sc/ A2/2000, dated 12-04-2001. The petitioner was charged that she violated the instructions of the university by participating in the conference without prior approval of the university, thereby committed an act of indiscipline. It was stated that despite the university asking petitioner not to participate, she had participated in the conference. The petitioner submitted an explanation dated 26-04-2001 to the Articles of Charge and explained that she had already made a request by her letter dated 18-12-2000 enclosing lecture note prepared for distribution in the conference and after the sanction of leave, she proceeded to Delhi. She further explained that Memo No.52139/HSc/A2/2000, dated 02-01-2001 issued by the 1st Respondent informing her not to participate in the conference was actually received by her on 08-01-2001 as she left in the morning on 02-01-2001 by A.P. Express and she could receive the Memo only on her return i.e., on 08-01-2001. The 1st Respondent however did not accede to the said explanation and passed the impugned order awarding punishment of censure and debarring the petitioner from promotion/appointment by transfer for one year. The impugned order is challenged inter alia on the ground that the petitioner did not commit any act of indiscipline. She in fact applied for earned leave for the purpose of attending the conference and only after the leave was sanctioned, she proceeded, thereby her conduct cannot be considered as indiscipline. Further, the 1st Respondent did not even consider the explanation offered by the petitioner and the impugned order is non-speaking, therefore unsustainable. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel seeks to justify the order on the ground that prior approval of the university is required even for attending conferences and the petitioner did not obtain such approval. It is therefore the contention of the 1st Respondent that punishment was rightly awarded. I am not inclined to express any opinion whether the petitioner was justified to participate in the conference; whether sanction of leave should be construed as granting approval by the University or whether there are any bona fides on the part of the petitioner in taking part in the conference. A perusal of the impugned order dated 27-06-2001 shows that the 1st Respondent did not consider the explanation offered by the petitioner at all. The petitioner specifically pleaded in her explanation dated 26-04-2001 to the memo of charge that leave was sanctioned to her for the period from 2nd to 7th January, 2001, inclusive of public holiday on the 7th and that only on obtaining sanction, she left in the early morning by A.P. Express on 02-01-2001. She is specifically pleaded that since she left on 02- 01-2001, she could not receive the orders of the 1st Respondent dated 02-01-2001 wherein she was asked not to proceed. It may be mentioned that in the matters relating to disciplinary proceedings, particularly when an employee is likely to be punished, a duty is cast upon the disciplinary authorities to scrupulously adhere to the procedure and pass appropriate orders by following such procedure and the principles of natural justice. A duty is also cast on the authorities to consider explanation offered and by meeting the explanation, pass a reasoned order. Assigning reasons is one of the basic facets of principles of natural justice. In the instant case, the 1st Respondent has passed the orders which is as under : “The explanation furnished by Dr.P.Rajya Laxmi, Associate Professor (CAS), Department of Foods and Nutrition, PG & RC., R’Nagar for the charges framed is found not at all satisfactory and convincing. Hence, the following orders are issued.” Except stating that the explanation is not convincing, the 1st Respondent has not considered the explanation dated 26-04- 2001 offered by the petitioner. The impugned order therefore is unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. This order however does not preclude the 1st Respondent to consider the explanation afresh and pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 25th November, 2010 skmr