HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.20627 of 2007 DATE:09.06.2010 Between: Dr. T.S. Mohana ... Petitioner and Dr.B.R. Ambedkar Open University, represented by its Registrar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad and another ... Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.20627 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in appointing a retired IAS Officer as an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charge sheet dated 28.12.2006 and in placing the petitioner under suspension vide proceedings dated 16.07.2007 as illegal and arbitrary, and also to direct the respondents not to proceed with the enquiry in pursuance of the charge sheet dated 28.12.2006 and reinstate the petitioner as an Associate Professor with all consequential benefits. 2. Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that initially she was appointed as an Assistant Professor in the respondent-University on 13.03.1984. Subsequently, she was promoted as an Associate Professor and presently she is working as Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Political Science of the respondent- University. While she was working as Associate Professor, by an order dated 27.06.2002, the 1st respondent placed her under suspension on flimsy grounds. Thereafter, the respondents revoked the order of suspension on 26.03.2003 and reinstated her into service by imposing punishment of withholding one annual increment for a period of one year without issuing a charge memo and without conducting enquiry into the allegations made against her. Being aggrieved by the same, she filed W.P.No.8610 of 2003 before this Court and the same is pending. i) After filing W.P.No.8610 of 2003, the 1st respondent has issued a Charge Memo dated 08.11.2005 calling for her explanation within seven days. The charges are as follows: a) The petitioner has not taken prior permission from the authorities for leaving Abroad. b) The petitioner has not taken prior permission for proceeding to the Court. c) The petitioner has degraded the office of the Chancellor/Vice-Chancellor of the University. d) The petitioner has blamed and attributed malafide intentions to the office of his Excellency the Governor of Andhra Pradesh and the Chancellor of the University. e) The petitioner is threatening the authorities of the University. f) The petitioner failed to mention her name and designation while sending letters to the authorities, but simply signing on it reflects her carelessness. In response to the above Charge Memo, she had submitted a detailed explanation on 02.12.2005 and 09.12.2005. But, the respondent- University has not communicated, any information, as to dropping of the charges or initiation of departmental proceedings against her. ii) While things stood thus, the respondent-University issued another Charge Memo dated 28.12.2006 to her. The charges read as under: a) A Criminal case has been registered against the petitioner at Women Police Station, CCS, Detective Department, Hyderabad, on 06.08.2005. The Hon’ble XXII Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Mahila Court at Nampally, Hyderabad, has served NBW against her on 23.08.2006 and the warrant was executed against her and she was kept in police custody from 6.00 am to 5.00 pm on two different spells i.e., on 17.08.2006 & 23.08.2006 and subsequently released on bail. But, it is surprised to see that she has put her initials in the attendance register on 17.03.2006 & 23.08.2006. b) The petitioner is bound to intimate in writing to her employer on any legal/criminal proceedings pending against her and should obtain permission to represent the case. c) The promissory note for Rs.20 lakhs forging the signature of Mr. G.P.Patel, which was sent to A.P. Forensic Science Laboratory on the directions of the XII Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, traced as forged by the petitioner. d) The petitioner has left the Country without prior permission from the University and visited U.S.A. from 07.05.2003 to 06.06.2003, 28.06.2004 to 08.09.2004 and 20.03.2005 to 01.07.2005. According to the petitioner, the charges in the Memo dated 28.12.2006 are nothing but repetition of the charges leveled against her in the earlier Charge Memo dated 08.11.2005. However, to the Charge Memo dated 28.12.2006, she has submitted a detailed explanation on 04.01.2007. iii) Thereafter, in pursuance of the order dated 16.07.2007 of the Vice Chancellor, the 1st respondent suspended her from service, by an order dated 16.07.2007, pending enquiry, and a retired IAS Officer was also appointed as an Enquiry Officer. The same is under challenge in the Writ Petition. 3. Heard both sides. 4. A challenge is made with regard to the Charge Memo dated 28.12.2006, suspension of the petitioner on 16.07.2007 and appointment of a retired IAS Officer as an Enquiry Officer on the ground that Conduct Rules do not permit such course of action to be adopted, by the respondents. 5. In so far as the objection raised by the petitioner as to appointment of a retired IAS Officer as an Enquiry Officer, is concerned, the Conduct Rules appear to have been amended with effect from 07.12.2006 enabling the respondent-University to appoint a retired IAS Officer as an Enquiry Officer. Therefore, raising such an objection does not arise. 6. In so far as the Charge Memo dated 28.12.2006 is concerned, Charge Nos. 1 to 3 have nothing to do with the duties of the petitioner as Associate Professor of the respondent-University. They arose out of domestic affairs or otherwise of the petitioner. The Charge Memo enumerates misconduct of the petitioner, but it is not mentioned as to what was the Rule petitioner had violated. Even against Charge No.2 and 4, the respondent-University has not indicated as to what Rules, which are enumerated in the Conduct Rules, have been violated by the petitioner requiring enquiry into the same. 7. Further, in so far as Charge No.4 is concerned, the petitioner left the Country without permission in the years 2003, 2004 and 2005. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the first spell i.e., from 07.05.2003 to 06.06.2003 was the subject matter of previous enquiry, and for that, the petitioner was suitably punished, which is subject matter of W.P.No.8610 of 2003 pending before this Court. Therefore, the said period ought not to have been included in the present Charge Memo. Looking from any angle, the Charge Memo issued by the respondent-University cannot stand for scrutiny of law. The charges which are not supposed to be enquired into have been included in the present Charge Memo and further they are not properly framed indicating the Rules of the Conduct Rules which has been violated etc. Therefore, the Charge Memo dated 28.12.2006 is liable to be set aside. 8. In so far as suspension of the petitioner vide proceedings dated 16.07.2007 is concerned, it cannot be the subject matter of adjudication here, simply because the present Charge Memo was not properly framed. Therefore, no inference can be made against the suspension of the petitioner during pendency of the enquiry. 9. In view of above discussion, the Charge Memo dated 28.12.2006 issued by the 1st respondent is hereby set aside and liberty is given to the respondent-University to frame a fresh Charge Memo against the petitioner and go ahead with enquiry, as per law. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ C.V. RAMULU, J 9th June, 2010 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.20627 of 2007 (Disposed of) 9th June, 2010 CBS