THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.4435 OF 2008 DATED 8TH DECEMBER, 2010 BETWEEN Smt.A.Thulasamma … Petitioner And The Secretary, A.P. Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society, Hyderabad. And Others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.4435 OF 2008 ORDER: The petitioner, a Lab Attender in the service of the Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society, was removed from service under its proceeding dated 14.02.2008. Hence, this writ petition. The petitioner was working as a Lab Attender in the Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare Residential School, Chinnachowk, Kadapa District, under the control of the Society at the relevant point of time. She availed leave from 31.03.2006 which was extended thereafter upto 09.04.2006. The alleged rape of a girl student by the petitioner’s son along with the son of the In-charge Principal is said to have taken place on 04.04.2006. At that time the petitioner was admitted in a Hospital at Chennai and was undergoing treatment. Upon her return, she was placed under suspension on 15.04.2006 and subjected to disciplinary proceedings on the following two charges: “CHARGE NO.1 That Smt.A.Thulasamma, Lab Attender (U/S), Upgraded School Chinnachowk, Kadapa District has failed to observe the attitude of her son Sri Suresh who have developed love with Kum.Bharathi and writing love letter to each other and thereby violated the Society instructions issued. Hence the charge. CHARGE NO.2 That Smt.A.Thulasamma, Lab Attender (U/S), Upgraded School Chinnachowk, Kadapa District has suppressed the facts of the rape case and planned to bury the case without coming into light and to protect her son and son of the In-charge Principal thereby violated the Conduct Rules of the Society instructions. Hence the charge.” By report dated 26.03.2007, the Enquiry Officer held that both the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved. While communicating the said report the disciplinary authority informed the petitioner under Memo dated 20.04.2007 that it proposed to disagree with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner submitted her explanation thereto. Thereupon, the impugned proceeding dated 14.02.2008 came to be issued. The relevant portion of this proceeding reads as under: “After thorough examination of the charges framed against the Charged Officer, her written statement of defence and findings of the Inquiry Authority, it is observed that, Smt.A.Thulasamma, Lab Attender (U/S), Upgraded School Chinnachowk, Kadapa District has allowed her major son to stay alone in her quarters thereby given scope for the entire mishap. Had she taken her son along with her to Chennai and Tirupathi the incident would not have happened. She cannot escape herself from the vicarious liability rest on her. As per the Enquiry Officer’s Report, the accused persons Mr.Harshavardhan Reddy and Mr.Suresh were childhood friends and Mr.Suresh’s grandparents house is situated very close to the Residential School. Therefore, it concluded that, Mr.Harshavardhan Reddy and Mr.Suresh committed the act of rape in collaboration by hatching a plan. In the light of the above circumstances, Smt.A.Thula-samma, Lab Attender (U/S), Upgraded School Chinnachowk, Kadapa District, is hereby inflicted with a punishment of Removal from Service under clause (ix) of Rule-9 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991.” It is relevant to note that neither of the two charges framed against the petitioner spoke of any misconduct on her part in allowing her son to stay alone in the Quarter, thereby giving scope for the mishap. Nor was she charged with any vicarious liability in this regard. Surprisingly, having informed the petitioner that it proposed to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority based its decision on a completely new ground which never formed part of the charges levelled against the petitioner. Needless to state, the charges framed against an employee must be clear, explicit and specific. It would not be open to the disciplinary authority to enlarge the scope of the charges at the stage of imposing the punishment and visit the employee concerned with a penalty basing on findings recorded on charges which were never put to the employee. Such course of action is clearly impermissible in law. Sri B.Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, sought to place reliance on the Judgment dated 01.07.2009 in Special Sessions Case No.66 of 2008 passed by the Special Sessions Judge for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Kadapa, whereby the petitioner’s son was acquitted of the charge under Section 376 IPC on the ground that the alleged victim had stated that no such offence was committed upon her. This statement was supported by her parents. Be that as it may, this Court is of the opinion that the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner, viewed in the light of the legal position stated supra, cannot be sustained as it was based upon findings on an unframed charge which was never put to the petitioner. On this short ground, the impugned proceeding dated 14.02.2008 is liable to be set aside and is accordingly so done. The petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. The Writ Petition is allowed. Parties shall bear their own costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 8TH DECEMBER, 2010. VGSR/PGS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.4435 OF 2008 8TH DECEMBER, 2010