IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 13416 of 2008 Between: Siddiqui aided schools committee, Sirivel rep by its President, Sri K.J.Saheb basha Sidddiqui, S/o. K.Moinuddin Siddiqui, aged 61 years, Nandyal, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P. rep by its Secretary, Education Dept. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Educational Officer, Kurnool District , Kurnool. 3 C.Fazlur Rahman, S/o. C.Abdul Sattar, S.G.Teacher, Moinuddin Siddiqui, U.P.School, Sirivel, Kurnool district. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to pass orders particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the in action of the respondents in according permission to the petitioner to exercise powers of the administration and disciplinary control over its employee, the 3rd respondent herein as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the provisions of Sec 79 of the Act and violative of Art 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and direct the respondents to give permission to the petitioners as contemplated under sec 79 of the A.P. Education Act, 1982. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KASA JAGAN MOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following ORDER: The third respondent is employed as a Teacher with the petitioner-School. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the third respondent, on the allegation that he resorted to acts of misconduct by issuing fake certificates, etc. Enquiry is said to have been conducted and, ultimately, the petitioner had submitted proposals through proceedings, dated 26.03.2007 and 20.09.2007, to the second respondent with a request to accord approval for the proposed punishment against the third respondent. Its grievance is that no orders have been passed thereon so far and that the third respondent is continuing with the acts of misconduct. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for School Education. Before the management of a private educational institution imposes any punishment against its employees, permission by the competent authority is essential under Section 79 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982. Even where the departmental enquiry is conducted and the charge is proved, the punishment cannot be inflicted without such permission. Any delay in according the permission would some times defeat the very initiation of disciplinary proceedings. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the second respondent to pass appropriate orders on the proposals submitted by the petitioner v ide proceedings, dated 26.03.2007 and 20.09.2007, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:26.06.2008 kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS}