THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 1765 of 2005 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare the orders passed by the respondent in its file No.2689/226/82/Estt.I dated 20.8.2003 and the Memo No. 4458/226/82/Estt.I dated 5.11.2004 as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice; consequently, to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits. It appears, petitioner, while working as Senior Assistant in P.G. College of Osmania University, was suspended from service on 22.7.1994 and a charge memo was issued on 1.8.1994, enumerating the following charge: “Sri Syed Anwar Hussain, while working as Senior Assistant in the University, Department of Press & Publications along with the Former Director, O.U. Printing Press and Sri Bheem Rao, Cashier of the same Department entered into a criminal conspiracy with common intention to misappropriate University funds and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, the Former Director issued unauthorisedly self=cheques amounting to Rs.28.67 lakhs. Sri Syed Anwar Hussain along with Sri Bheem Rao encashed those cheques and have shown as disbursed the over-time allowance to the employees of the Osmania University Press only to an extent of Rs.17.67 lakhs during the years 1990-91 to 1992-93. Sri Syed Anwar Hussain has also not maintained cheque-wise disbursements of overtime allowance”. After conducting detailed enquiry into the said charge, by an order dated 16.9.1995, punishment was imposed reducing his pay-scale by two incremental stages while reinstating him into service. Apart from that, petitioner was again placed under suspension on 2.5.1997 and a charge sheet was issued on 10.11.1997 enumerating the following charge: “Sri Syed Anwar Hussain while working as Senior Assistant at OU Press along with the former Director and Sri Bheem Rao, Cashier of the same Department entered into a Criminal Conspiracy with common intention to misappropriate University funds and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, the former Director issues unauthorisedly self cheques amounting to Rs.28.67 lakhs. Sri Syed Anwar Hussain along with Sri Bheem Rao encashed those cheques and have shown as disbursed the overtime allowance to the employees of US Press only to extent of Rs.11.00 lakhs and failed to remit the undisbursed amount of Rs.17.67 lakhs during the years 1990 to 1992-93. Sri Anwar Hussain has also not maintained cheque-wise disbursements of overtime allowance”. After conducting a detailed enquiry into the matter and after completing all the formalities, petitioner was dismissed from service by an order dated 20.8.2003. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner preferred appeal before the Executive Council of the University. The Executive Council of the University, at its 77th meeting held on 19.8.2004, rejected the appeal and the same was communicated to the petitioner by an order dated 5.11.2004 by the Deputy Registrar (Admn). Aggrieved by those two orders, the present writ petition is filed. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge in the first charge memo dated 1.8.1994 and the second charge memo dated 10.11.1997 is identical, therefore, the question of punishing the petitioner twice does not arise and it amounts to double jeopardy. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that against the punishment imposed after issuing charge memo dated 10.11.1997, W.P. No. 22744 of 2000 was filed questioning the charge memo dated 10.11.1997 and the said writ petition was dismissed on 19.11.2002. Therefore, a detailed enquiry was conducted and the explanation offered by the petitioner was not accepted and he was dismissed from service by the impugned order dated 20.8.2003. Heard both sides and perused the material made available on record. Though the first charge and the second charge cannot be said to be identical, they arose out of one and the same misconduct. After concluding the disciplinary proceedings under the first charge dated 1.8.1994, it appears, in view of an elaborate enquiry conducted by the A.C.B. authorities, charge memo was issued framing the second charge dated 10.11.1997. The gravity of second charge, however, appears to be that after investigation, the A.C.B. prima facie came to the conclusion that apart from the Director, certain other staff members of the Department, including the petitioner, were involved in serious financial irregularities, causing wrongful loss to the funds of the University and wrongful gain to themselves. Petitioner entered into criminal conspiracy with common intention of misappropriating University funds and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, the former Director issued self-cheques amounting to Rs.27,67,000/-, unauthorisedly. Petitioner, along with one Bheem Rao, encashed those cheques and shown them disbursed as overtime allowance to the University Press, only to an extent of Rs.11.00 lakhs and failed to remit the remaining undisbursed amount during the years 1990-91 to 1992-93. Petitioner also has not maintained cheque-wise disbursement of overtime allowance. There is no necessity of going into all the details. The order passed by disciplinary authority is bereft of any reasons. No details and no findings are forthcoming except saying as follows: “While enclosing the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer Sri Syed Anwar Hussain was issued a show cause notice vide reference 6th cited, directing him to submit his written statement in defence. In reply Sri Syed Anwar Hussain has not submitted any further grounds in his defence, but has once again stressed that there should not be another enquiry in the matter as he has already been awarded punishment for the same charges. Since this claim of Sri Syed Anwar Hussain was rejected by the Hon’ble Court, his explanation is found to be not satisfactory”. However, while rejecting the appeal, the Executive Council passed the following order: “Sri Syed Anwar Hussain has raised certain points in his appeal which are discussed below: 1. The contention of Sri Syed Anwar Hussain is that the present enquiry is conducted on the basis of the same charge, on which an earlier enquiry was conducted and the award of punishment amounts to punishing him twice for the same offence. This contention has already been rejected by the Hon’ble High Court which directed the University to proceed with the present enquiry. 2. Sri Syed Anwar Hussain has stated that the charge of conspiracy and misappropriation is not proved. It is stated that the charge of conspiracy and misappropriation of University funds against the delinquent is proved. In the statement recorded during personal hearing, the delinquent himself has stated that they used to make payment of more money than what is recorded in acquittance and sometimes more money was disbursed without obtaining the signatures of the employees on the acquittance. And when signatures are taken on acquittance for disbursement they were made in the Register and sometimes on loose sheets. These circumstances lead to the evidence that there has been a conspiracy between the delinquent the Cashier Sri Bheem Rao and the Director, Sri A.K.Gopalan. Further, a large amount was drawn from the bank on account of overtime allowance which was partly used for disbursement and a sum of Rs.17.67 lakhs has remained unaccounted. The sum would not have remained unaccounted unless there was a conspiracy. 3. Sri Syed Anwar Hussain has stated that the ACB has filed a charge sheet in Cr.No.17 of 2000 and the same is pending trial and in the light of the pendency of trial he has requested to set aside the orders of punishment. It is submitted that the enquiry conducted by the University is a regularly departmental enquiry as per the University discipline and appeal rules. Further, when Sri Syed Anwar Hussain approached the Hon’ble High Court against the enquiry. The Court in W.P.No.22722 of 2000 dismissed his petition and directed the University to conclude the disciplinary proceedings. As per rules the appeal of Sri Syed Anwar Hussain was submitted to the Executive Council and the Executive Council at its 77th meeting held on 19.8.2004 after detailed examination of the records has resolved to reject the appeal submitted by Sri Syed Anwar Hussain and also resolved that the punishment awarded to him vide reference 1st cited holds good”. The reasons for either removal of the petitioner or as to on what ground the petitioner was held guilty of the charges, what exactly is the evidence, either oral or documentary, to hold the petitioner guilty of the charge, are not available. Though the learned counsel for the respondent Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee submitted that, may be disciplinary authority has not furnished reasons but the appellate authority has furnished all the reasons and the order passed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority has to be read along with enquiry officer’s report, the approach made by the respondent cannot be countenanced. The points raised in the appeal were copied down and the appeal was rejected saying that the Executive Council at its 77th meeting held on 19.8.2004, after detailed examination of the records, has resolved to reject the appeal submitted by the petitioner. Thus, neither disciplinary authority nor appellate authority has given any reasons to say that the petitioner was guilty of the charge leveled against him. What exactly is the role prayed by the petitioner in the so-called criminal conspiracy with common intention to misappropriate the funds of the University, is not forthcoming. How much money was encashed by the petitioner and how much amount was not disbursed by him exactly and what are the entries which are missing in the register are all not discussed either by disciplinary authority or appellate authority. In fact, the very charge appears to be a criminal charge in its nature and, it appears, criminal case is still pending. Therefore, respondents ought not to have entered into the area of conducting enquiry into the criminal charge. The respondents have given a go-bye to all the canons of procedural rules and just wanted to get rid of the petitioner and thus passed the impugned order, which is arbitrary, illegal and does not stand to scrutiny of law. For all the above reasons, the impugned orders passed by the respondent in its file No.2689/226/82/Estt.I dated 20.8.2003 and the Memo No. 4458/226/82/Estt.I dated 5.11.2004 are liable to be set aside and are accordingly set aside. It appears that the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation during the pendency of the writ petition. Under those circumstances, conducting any further enquiry at this length of time may not serve any purpose except causing delay. To give a quietus to the litigation, I am of the opinion that the writ petition itself can be disposed of directing the respondents to treat that the petitioner was reinstated into service one day prior to his retirement and retired on attaining the age of superannuation. However, petitioner is not entitled to any back wages and other attendant benefits. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the above directions. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU Date: 30-4-2010 MVB THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.1765 of 2005 30.4.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.1765 of 2005 Date: 30th April, 2010 Between: Syed Anwar Hussain .. Petitioner And Osmania University, Jame-Osmania, Hyderabad, rep. by its Registrar. .. Respondent