THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.8610/2003, 20753/2009 & 28613/2010 COMMON ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Professor in the year 1984 and was thereafter promoted as Associate Professor. A perusal of the record in various cases instituted by her discloses that she has chosen more, to keep the Court and the University busy in the litigations, than to make any contribution for the improvement on the academic side. The lack of proper understanding with the University in such legal matters appears to have become handy for the petitioner, and the result is that there is spate of litigation. It all started with the issuance of a charge-memo to the petitioner on 29-06-2002, alleging, mostly acts of absence from duties and lack of interest in academic matters. The petitioner submitted her explanation and taking the same into account, the University passed orders on 26-03-2003, imposing punishment of stoppage of one increment for a period of one year, and directing that the period of suspension be treated as not on duty. W.P.No.8610 of 2003 is filed against it. Thereafter, another charge-memo was issued on 08-11-2005. The petitioner submitted her explanation. Almost on same lines, another charge-sheet was issued on 28-12-2006. A retired IAS officer was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. The petitioner filed W.P.No.20627 of 2007, challenging the subsequent charge sheet dated 28-12-2006, as well as the appointment of the IAS officer as enquiry officer. The writ petition was partly allowed on 09-06-2010, setting aside the second charge-sheet dated 28-12-2006, but upholding the appointment of an outsider as an enquiry officer. The petitioner was placed under suspension through order dated 16-07-2007. Prof. V. Ramakrishna Reddy, a Retired Professor of History was appointed as an Enquiry Officer through proceedings dated 18-09-2009. W.P.No.20753 of 2009 is filed, challenging the appointment of a retired employee of the University as enquiry officer and challenging the order of suspension dated 16-07-2007. During the pendency of the writ petition, the University issued another charge sheet dated 12-10-2010. W.P.No.28613 of 2003 is filed against it. Heard Sri Abhinand Kumar Shavili, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. Ratna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. As observed earlier, W.P.No.8610 of 2003 is filed challenging the order dated 26-03-2003, through which, the petitioner was imposed the punishment of withholding of one annual increment for a period of one year and to censure her. It is a minor punishment. The said order was preceded by a charge memo dated 29-06-2002. The gist of the charges mentioned therein are as under: 1. “You are not attending to your duties regularly and some times, you are leaving the office without informing either the Dean or the Director (Academic). 2. The revised Course material is ready to print form of Course-II of Political Science of U.G. Programme has not yet been handed over to the Director, Material Production. The last date for the submission of the revised material has been extended many times since September 2001 and 30th May 2002 was the final date by which the material is to be sent for printing. 3. You have not initiated and completed the convening of the Course Team Meetings for revision for one Course of III year Political Science U.G. Programme. 4. You have come to the office on 30th April 2002 and left the office without informing anybody. Further, you have not reported to duty on the reopening day i.e. 12th June 2002 after the summer vacation. There is no communication from you about the reason or request for any kind of leave till date.” The petitioner submitted her explanation, denying the allegations. The matter was placed before the Executive Council and through its resolution dated 22-03-2003, the council decided to impose the punishment referred to above. Reference was made to Rule 3-A of Part-5 of Discipline and Appeal Rules. The petitioner, no doubt, denied the allegations made against her. She is not able to point out that any procedural illegality has taken place in the process. Time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, in judicial review of administrative decisions, this Court would not review the decision as such, but it can only scrutinize the decision making process. For imposition of minor punishment, it is not necessary to conduct any domestic enquiry. The executive council was within its limits in imposing punishment, commensurate with the charges framed against the petitioner. This Court does not find any illegality or factual infirmity in the order dated 26-03-2003 passed by the respondents. W.P.No.20753 of 2009 challenges the suspension ordered against the petitioner, through proceedings dated 16-07-2007, and appointment of an enquiry officer into the charges framed in relation thereto. As regards the suspension, the petitioner states that it was not revoked even after lapse of about two years, by the time the writ petition was filed, and that she is not being paid the subsistence allowance. The respondents contend that the progress in the enquiry was hampered on account of non-cooperation on the part of the petitioner. It is also their case that the petitioner left the country without any intimation to the University, and for the period during which she was out of Hyderabad, without their permission; she is not entitled for subsistence allowance. It is not in dispute that the petitioner left the country, may be for her own reasons. One cannot expect any progress in the enquiry, when the petitioner is not available in the country. Her absence at the place would also be a factor, that would have a direct bearing upon the liability of the University, to pay subsistence allowance. Therefore, while it cannot be said that the respondents were under obligation to revoke the suspension against the petitioner, their obligation to pay subsistence allowance for the period, during which the petitioner was available and did not leave the place without their permission; needs to be recognized. The objection raised by the petitioner for appointment of a retired Professor as an enquiry officer cannot be sustained. That very question was decided against her, in W.P.No.20627 of 2007. Coming to W.P.No.28613 of 2010, the charge-memo dated 08- 11-2005, which is assailed therein cannot be sustained for more reasons than one. The very framing of charges was defective. It appears that the charges were framed by a person, who was not conversant with the service matters. There is no reference to any provision of law. While in some cases, it is a vague statement, in others, it is in the form of a question. It is also stated that the substance of this charge-sheet is, in a way, covered by the charge- sheet, into which the enquiry is already pending. In case the respondents are of the view that the petitioner has resorted to any acts of indiscipline, subsequent to the issuance of the charge-sheet dated 20-04-2009, they have to issue a fresh charge-sheet. For the foregoing reasons, W.P.Nos.8610 of 2003 and 20753 of 2009 are dismissed, and W.P.No.28613 of 2010 is allowed. It is directed that it shall be open to the University to issue a comprehensive charge-sheet, duly citing the relevant provisions of law and proceed against the petitioner, in accordance with law. It shall be open to them to continue the enquiry officer, who is already appointed, or to appoint another one, and conclude the entire proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It shall, however, be open to the petitioner to make a representation to the University, pointing out her grievance, as to payment of subsistence allowance. On receipt of the same, the University shall verify, and if there are any arrears payable to the petitioner, the same shall be cleared within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.06-12-2010. KO