IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.21451 of 2001 DATE:03.12.2010 Between: J.Rosa Rao …… Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Secretary to Government, Education Department & 3 others …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.21451 of 2001 ORDER : The petitioner is Secretary, Correspondent and Headmaster of Sri Srinivasa Vidya Niketan Primary School, Amaravathi. He was kept under suspension by the District Educational Officer, Guntur by the impugned order dated 24.01.2001. So, he approached this Court through this writ petition seeking mandamus declaring the impugned order as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and to reinstate the petitioner into service. This Court passed interim order on 15.10.2001 granting stay of operation of the suspension order suspending the petitioner from service and permitting the enquiry to go on. 2) Allegation against the petitioner is that he showed one L.Bhagya Lakshmi as Secondary Grade Teacher in attendance register from 4/90 to 11/95 and had drawn Rs.1,61,897/- for the said period even though the said Bhagya Lakshmi has been working as lecturer at R.V.R.College of Education, Guntur since the year 1984. There was A.C.B enquiry on the said allegations and case in Crime No.27/ACB/VJA/98 was registered against the petitioner and another in that regard. A.C.B authorities are stated to have sent report to the Government and instructed the Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, to place the petitioner and another under suspension and to initiate action for recovery of the amount of Rs.1,61,897/- illegally drawn by the petitioner. Thereupon, District Educational Officer, Guntur passed the impugned order in exercise of power under “Rule 24(3)(b)” of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 (in short, the Act) (mistake for Section 24(3)(b) of the said Act). 3) It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that it is only the management of the school which can take disciplinary action against the petitioner including keeping him under suspension and that the Government or the District Educational Officer has no jurisdiction or authority to place the petitioner under suspension invoking Section 24(3)(b) of the Act. It is further contended that the management alone is competent authority to take action against any teacher under Section 79 of the Act and that even if the management has got authority to pass order of suspension, it can only keep a teacher under suspension for a period of 2 months initially pending enquiry and in case the enquiry could not be completed within the said period of 2 months, necessity of continuing the petitioner under suspension has to be reviewed thereafter. At this stage, I would like to clarify that whether period of suspension is specified or not, it operates only for a period of 2 months initially and if the said suspension is not revoked or reviewed, it ceases to operate after expiry of 2 months’ period unless specifically extended by an order. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that in case any disciplinary action is to be taken against the petitioner as Head Master/teacher of the school, then neither the Government nor the District Educational Officer has jurisdiction to take the said action under Section 79 of the Act read with Rule 19 of the A.P. Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Schools under Private Management) Rules 1993 issued in G.O.Ms.No.1 Education (P.S.2) Department, dated 01.01.1994. On the other hand, the Government Pleader contended that the petitioner being both the Management himself and a Head Master also, the District Educational Officer has taken action under Section 24 of the Act. The Government Pleader further submitted that there is no special provision under the Education Act contemplating a case where a person like the petitioner is both a Management as well as an employee. 4) The fact that the District Educational Officer, Guntur passed the impugned order dated 24.01.2001 in exercise of powers under Section 24(3)(b) of the Act, it follows that he intended to take action against the petitioner in his capacity as Correspondent-cum- Secretary of the school. In this case, the District Educational Officer did not invoke any power under Section 79 of the Act intending to take action against the petitioner working as Head Master of the school. His intention was to take action against the petitioner representing the management of the school. 5) Section 24(3)(b) of the Act reads as follows: “(b) Where the competent authority is satisfied that the manager alone is responsible for the lapses or irregularities of the institution, action shall be taken against him by the management, as recommended by the competent authority”. The alleged act of drawing aid from the Government as against an aided post showing a spurious person like L.Bhagya Lakshmi as Secondary Grade Teacher even though she was working as lecturer in R.V.R. College of Education, Guntur, is an action referable to the Management of the institution and is not an action referable to the Head Master of the institution. Therefore, no action could be taken by the competent authority or the Government as against the petitioner’s position as Head Master. But on the instructions of A.C.B authorities, the Government/competent authority has to take necessary action against the petitioner as Secretary and Correspondent of the school. With the said clarification, I propose to dispose of this writ petition. 6) In the result, the writ petition is disposed of, holding that the impugned proceedings of the District Educational Officer, Guntur dated 24.01.2001 keeping the petitioner under suspension as Secretary-Correspondent and Head Master of the School as contrary to law and without authority of law; but giving liberty to take appropriate action against the petitioner under Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act in respect of his position as Correspondent and Secretary of the institution alone. No costs. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J December 3, 2010 ksh