THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD W.P.No.22051 of 2000 JUDGMENT: (Per Justice B.Prakash Rao) The petitioner herein who is a retired employee of the University, which is the respondent No.1 herein, filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for a Mandamus declaring the twin proceedings viz., (1) of the Vice Chancellor of the 1st respondent dated 16-10-20000 in initiating the enquiry by appointing an Enquiry Officer consisting of a retired District Judge and (2) the orders of the respondent No.2, who is A.P. Upalokayukta, dated 30-3-2000 directing an enquiry to be conducted by the said University in pursuance of a complaint given by one Mr.Ravi Kumar in Complaint No.695/99/B2 as bad, illegal, null and void and to set aside the same. Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that he has joined the service of the University on 20-6-1967 and posted at Post-Graduate Centre at Guntur. He was promoted further as Senior Assistant in October 1979, as Superintendent in January 1980, as Assistant Registrar in August 1995 and as Deputy Registrar in July 1998. As per the age of superannuation, on completion of 58 years, he would be retiring from service with effect from 14-7-1999, as per the memorandum issued by the University dated 27-3-1999. It was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.13882 of 1999 where the said orders were suspended, and accordingly, he was continued in service as per the orders issued by the University dated 2-8- 1999. However, as per the application filed on 15-10-2000, he sought to withdraw the writ petition, and accordingly, the same was permitted as per orders of this Court on 18-10-2000 in pursuance of earlier orders in WP.No.9498 of 1992, dated 12-8-1993 wherein a specific direction was given with a clarification that the service rendered after attaining superannuation be treated as just service. Accordingly, the petitioner made a representation on 23-10-2000 for the purpose of settling the retrial benefits. On 6-11-2000, the University issued orders stating that the petitioner is deemed to have retired with effect from 31-7-1999 and the said retirement is without prejudice to two enquires, which were ordered on the allegations of availing illegal family increments and alteration of date of birth. It was stated that even on 31-7-1999, there was no enquiry ordered nor any proceedings are pending or initiated as such. It is only on 6-11-2000, a communication was received from the University about the commission of enquiry through a retired District Judge, in pursuance of the orders of the Upa-Lokayukta dated 30-3-2000 in the afore-mentioned proceedings in pursuance of a complaint. Therefore, according to the petitioner the said enquiry through a retired District Judge is only in pursuance of a direction of Upalokayukta and would not in any way pertain to initiation of any disciplinary action by the University on its own or on its own allegations attributed against the petitioner. On verification, it is stated that the complaint is filed by one Mr. M.Rai Kumar, who is a resident of Tenali against the Vice-Chancellor, Registrar and an Engineer with several other allegations, and the said complaint was taken suo motu by the Upalokayukta and the orders were passed. In the said complaint there are 22 allegations, and even as per the proceedings, it is evident that no such proceedings could have been initiated against the petitioner as the Employee of the University since it would not fall well within the purview or parameter of the jurisdiction vested in the Upalokayukta under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta and Upalokayukta Act, 1983 (for short ‘the Act’), and therefore, the entire proceedings as initiated against the petitioner is totally without any authority, power or jurisdiction, and hence, on this short count the present writ petition has been filed to set aside both the proceedings as mentioned in the preceding paragraph. At the stage of admission, this Court has granted interim stay of the said proceedings and enquiry as per the orders dated 20-11-2000 in WPMP.No.28029 of 2000 and the same is subsisting all along. In the counter sworn to and filed by one J.Krishnaiah, the Superintendent in the respondent No.1-University there is a total denial as to the plea set up by the petitioner. It was stated that as per the orders of the Upalokayukta a preliminary verification was done by the Investigation Officer, who submitted report on 1-12-1999 stating that the petitioner has availed two family planning increments in the year 1985 and having regard to the entries in regard to the recanalization, he would not be entitled and therefore the said report is sufficient enough to involve the petitioner for such availment of the benefits unauthorisedly. It is further reiterated in the detailed counter in further paragraphs that it is only in compliance of the directions of the A.P Upalokyukta, the entire action has been taken and the same would be enquired into by the enquiry officer. Therefore, it is stated that there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. On considering the submissions made across the Bar from both sides and on perusal of the entire material on record, the only short point, which arises for consideration is as to whether on the facts and circumstances, the petitioner as an employee of the University fall within the mischief of the Provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta and Upalokayukta Act, 1983. There is no dispute in record to the above checkered events, especially, in regard to the service of the petitioner in the University. There is also no serious dispute in regard to the fact that the petitioner as attained age of superannuation on 31-07-1999 and there has been certain proceedings and the resultant effect and the continuation thereof is a subject matter in this writ petition. There is no dispute in regard to the fact that as on 31-7-1999 no such enquiry was initiated or pending as such against the petitioner at the instance of the University. Even a reading of the entire counter affidavit and the allegations therein shows that the action is initiated only on the directions given by the A.P. Upalokayukta and not otherwise in suo motu, much less, on their own instance. Admittedly, the complaint has been filed by one Mr.Ravi Kumar making several allegations, which run not only against the petitioner, but also against the Vice Chancellor, Registrar etc. It is this complaint which is seized by the Upalokayukta and a direction was given in the aforesaid impugned proceedings to hold an enquiry. It is only in pursuance of this direction, the enquiry officer consisting retired District Judge was appointed, and there are no serious disputes in regard to these events. Thus, the pointer is as to the petitioner as an employee could have been given any direction to proceed against by the Upalokayukta. For convenient sake, the definition of a public servant is provided for under Section 2 (k) of the said Act, which reads as follows: “(k) ‘public servant’ means a person falling under any of the following descriptions, namely- (i) every Minister referred in Clause (g); (ii) every member of either House of the State Legislature, including the Chief Whip in the Assembly and the Chief Whip in the Council, whether present or past; (iii) every officer referred in Clause (i); (iv) (1) every Chairman of a Zilla Parishad, and every President of a Panchayat Samithi, constituted by or under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Samithis and Zilla Parishads Act, 1959 (Act 35 of 1959); (2) every Mayor of the Municipal Corporation constituted by or under the relevant law for the time being in force; (3) every Chairman of a Municipal Council constituted or, deemed to be constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 (Act 6 of 1965), other than that of second and third grade municipalities; (v) every Chairman or President, by whatever name called of the governing body to which the management is entrusted and every Director, if any, in respect of,- (1) any local authority in the State; (2) any Corporation(not being a local authority) established by or under a State Act and owned or controlled by the Government; (3) any Government Company within the meaning of section 617 of the companies Act, 1956 (Central Act 1 of 1956); (4) any society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Central Act 21 of 1860) or the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 F. (Act 1 of 1350 F), which is subject to the control of the Government; (5) any co-operative society registered or deemed to be registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co- operative Societies Act, 1964, (Act 7 of 1964) whose area of operation extends to the whole of the State or is confirmed to a part of the State extending to an area not less than a district; (vi) every Vice-Chancellor and every Registrar, of a University in the State, established by law made by the state Legislature;” Amongst several officials as mentioned therein, it is only sub-clause (vi), which takes in the Vice Chancellor and Registrar of University. It does not in any way contemplate that other employees other than these two officials of a University could fall within the mischief of the said definition of a public servant, to which the said legislation would apply, and in respect of which only either Lokayukta or Upalokayukta could entertain or seize in proceedings and necessarily to issue any consequential direction. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent did not in any way pointed out any other provision referred to or takes in the employees of the University. Therefore, prima facie we are of the view that the petitioner as an employee of the University and not being a Vice-Chancellor or a Registrar as such could not have been subjected to any enquiry or direction at the instance of the Lokayukta or Upalokayukta. Though the complaint filed by the said complainant in fact makes allegations against not only the petitioner but also against the Vice Chancellor, Registrar and Engineer, it could not have been taken on fault as against the petitioner. The direction, if any, could have been restricted to such of those authorities who fall within the definition as contemplated under Section 2 (k) (vi) of the Act. Therefore, we hold that the proceedings as taken on record and issuance of a consequential direction by the Upalokayukta, and thereafter, the further action on the part of the University only in pursuance of such direction is wholly without jurisdiction, vitiated, bad and illegal. Though the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent sought to justify the action by referring to the nature of allegation and the report made by the University, which goes against the petitioner, however, there being no such action as such by the university itself even on the date of age of superannuation, we do not think the university could in any way possibly take shelter merely because directions have been given by Upalokayukta and action taken. Since there are no proceedings pending as on the date of retirement, nothing could come to the aid of the University as such to proceed against the petitioner. In the circumstances, we hold that both the impugned orders are totally vitiated, bad, illegal and void and are liable to be set aside. Accordingly the proceedings of the Vice Chancellor of the 1st respondent University No.NU/RP/Legal/FOPI/2000, dated 16-10-2000 and the orders of the Upalokayukta, dated 30-3-2000 made in complaint No.695/99/B2 are set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO,J) _______________​_____ (G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J) Date:18-2-2011 grk