IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.A.No.1304 of 2011 DATED: 26.12.2011 Between: V.A.M.Harijan High School, Arundalapeta, Vijayawada, represented by its Correspondent V.S.K.S.Jyothi Prasad. ….Appellant-petitioner And 1.Government of A.P. represented by its Principal Secretary, Education (SE Dept.), Hyderabad and 3 others. .. Respondents-Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.A.No.1304 of 2011 JUDGMENT: (Per. Hon’ble Sri Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao) This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 22.07.2008 rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing W.P.No.23883 of 2004 instituted by the appellant. Parties are referred for convenience by the same status as they are arrayed in the writ petition. The 4th respondent was a teacher, while the writ petitioner was the Management of the school where she was employed. The 4th respondent-Teacher after obtaining oral permission from the Management has gone abroad by applying for leave. In order to ensure that the students do not suffer in her absence from the school, unwittingly, she has issued an advertisement for filling the leave vacancy by requiring the suitable candidates to get in touch with the Management of the school. This well meant conduct of the 4th respondent-Teacher was found fault with by the Management and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her on that count. Thereafter, the Management proposed to terminate her services and therefore sought for permission of the competent authority in terms of proviso to Section 79 (1) of the A.P. Education Act, 1982. At that stage, the competent authority has put the 4th respondent-Teacher as well as the Management on notice and also called for a report from the District Educational Officer in the matter. Based upon the overall appreciation of the material on record, the competent authority had arrived at a conclusion that the proposed punishment of removal from service is too harsh and disproportionate for the gravity of the charges framed and proved against the 4th respondent-Teacher and accordingly declined to accord permission sought for by the petitioner-Management and suggested to it to impose a lesser punishment. That decision of the Competent Authority was challenged in the writ petition. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the competent authority has misconstrued the jurisdiction available to him under the proviso to Section 79 (1) of the A.P. Education Act with that of the appellate authority. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, at this preliminary stage, the question of affording an opportunity to the 4th respondent-Teacher or calling for remarks from the District Educational Officer should not have arisen. Therefore, according to learned Counsel for the appellant, the order passed by the competent authority, which is impugned in the writ petition, deserves to be set aside and the competent authority must be deemed to have accorded permission to the Management to remove the 4th respondent-Teacher from service. At the stage when the Management seeks permission of the Competent Authority for inflicting punishment of removal from service upon a teacher, the competent authority is required to be satisfied that the material available on record warrants imposition of such a punishment or not. Only if he is satisfied that the teacher concerned is guilty of a commensurate misconduct, such a permission should be accorded. The rationale behind this provision, as has been incorporated by the Legislature, is to prevent any possible miscarriage of justice or harassment that might be meted out by the private Managements against their employees for one unsustainable reason or the other. It is considered by the Legislature as appropriate and essential to safeguard the assured length of service of an employee of a private educational institution. Hence, the fact that the competent authority has, in the process, complied with the principles of natural justice by putting the 4th respondent- Teacher on notice, does not render his exercise any bad. On the other hand, it is a qualitative improvement accorded by the competent authority to the entire exercise. We, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission duly confirming the view taken by the learned Single Judge. No order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J 26.12.2011 Gsn.