IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 8914 of 2008 Between: Gazula Karunanandam, S/o. G.Jayanandam, St.George's Grammar School, Abids, Hyderabad, R/o. Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Regional Joint Director of School Education , Hyderabad 2 St.George's Grammar School, Rep by its Warden and Correspondent, Abids, Hyderabad. .....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 issue a writ, order or direction(s) more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, (a) to hold the very suspension order dated 16.03.2007 as bad, illegal, (b) to treat the Petitioner as reinstated with eﬀect from 16.05.2007 an pay the diﬀerences of salary, (c) to set aside the proceedings dated 10.05.2007 issued by the 2nd Respondent extending the period of suspension as illegal, without jurisdiction, arbitrary and contrary to Section 79(3) of Education Act,1982; (d) to reinstate the Petitioner forthwith and to give eﬀect to proceedings dated 19-01-2008 issued by the 1st Respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SATISH DESHPANDEY Counsel for the Respondents : MR.CH.SAMSON BABU FOR R2 GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION FOR R1 The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner is employed as a Commerce Teacher in the second respondent school. He was issued a charge memo, dated 05.03.2007, alleging that he had ill-treated a student for not undergoing tuition with him and that he had misbehaved with a Teacher, by name, Ms.Radha Rani. He was also placed under suspension, through order, dated 16.03.2007. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the ﬁrst respondent against the order of suspension. The ﬁrst respondent issued proceedings, dated 19.01.2008, directing the second respondent to take action as per the report of the Deputy E.O., Nampally. The grievance of the petitioner is that the proceedings of the ﬁrst respondent have not been implemented by the second respondent, as yet. He claims the relief of reinstatement into service, on expiry of 60 days, as provided for under Section 79 of the A.P. Education Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act’). The second respondent ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit denying the allegations of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner did not cooperate with the departmental enquiry at any stage and, ultimately, the Enquiry Oﬃcer submitted his report on 23.06.2008. It raised an objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the course being imparted in the ﬁrst respondent school is under a Central Government Scheme. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Education appearing for the ﬁrst respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent. The petitioner basis his right under Section 79 of the Act. It is no doubt true that the said provision mandates that the suspension of a Teacher of a private educational institution cannot be kept in force, for a period exceeding 60 days and the period of suspension can be extended by the competent authority for another two months. The second respondent raised a serious objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition. It is pleaded that the provisions of the Act do not apply in respect of a course, which is covered by the Central Government Scheme. That, however, is a diﬀerent aspect, which needs to be considered in a proper manner. The petitioner approached the ﬁrst respondent with an appeal under Section 80 of the Act. If the appeal was maintainable in law, the basic obligation on the part of the ﬁrst respondent was to issue notice of hearing to the second respondent and decide the matter on merits. He treated the appeal almost as a representation and issued directions to the District Educational Oﬃcer to cause enquiry. The latter, in turn, instructed his deputy to conduct enquiry. Through the proceedings, dated 19.01.2008, the ﬁrst respondent required the second respondent to implement the report of the Deputy E.O., Nampally. Such an exercise cannot be said to be the hearing and disposal of an appeal, much less an exercise traceable to Section 79 of the Act. Be that as it may, the second respondent states that an enquiry report has since been submitted. Without expressing any opinion as to the applicability of the provisions of Section 79 of the Act vis-à-vis the second respondent, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the second respondent to conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:26.08.2008. kdl