IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 23883 of 2004 Between: V.A.M.Harijana High School, Arundalpet, Vijayawada, rep., by its Correspondent Dr.V.Ramalingeswara Rao ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Govt. of A.P., rep., by its Prl.Secretary, Education (SE Dept.) Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 Commissioner & Director of School Education, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad. 3 Regional Joint Director of School Education, Kakinada. 4 K.Padmavathi, D.No.30-6-21, L.P.Street, Durga Agraharam, Vijayawada-520 002. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue writ or order or direction more in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings (1) Rc.No.490B1/2002 dated 19-08-2002 of the third respondent (2) L.Dis.No.4430/D1-2/2002 dated 20-08-2003 of the second respondent and (3) Letter No.15654/PS-2/2003 dated 25-10-2004 of the first respondent as illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of the A.P.Education Act and consequentially direct the third respondent to grant approval based on the proposal made by the petitioner vide letter dated 25-01-2002 as per Section 79(1) first proviso of The A.P.Education Act and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.V.S.S.S.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: 1.GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION 2.SRI K.VENKATESWARLU The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.23883 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner High School seeks to issue a writ or order or direction particularly one in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings dated 19.08.2002 and 20.08.2003 of the Regional Joint Director of School-3rd respondent and the Commissioner & Director of School Education-2nd respondent respectively and also the letter, dated 25.10.2004, of the 1st respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of the A.P.Education Act and to direct the 3rd respondent to grant approval based on the proposal made by the petitioner vide letter dated 25.01.2002 as per Section 79(1) of the A.P.Education Act. 2. Petitioner is the High School, wherein the 4th respondent is working as a teacher. The 4th respondent initially applied leave on 01.02.2001 for a period of six months and, later on, it was extended for two more months, thus, the total period of leave that was applied by the 4th respondent is for a period of eight months i.e., from 02.02.2001 to 02.10.2001. But, the same was not accepted by the petitioner High School and, in spite of that, the 4th respondent did not attend the duties. Thereupon, a show cause notice was issued to the 4th respondent on 28.12.2001, but no explanation was submitted by her and, according to the petitioner, there was no genuineness to accept the leave of the 4th respondent, supported by the Medical Certificates, and all the acts of the 4th respondent show the negligence of duty and violation of Code of Conduct, and since they are not excusable, the Management of the petitioner High School decided to remove the 4th respondent from service. Accordingly, the petitioner High School addressed a letter, dated 25.01.2002, to the 3rd respondent- Regional Joint Director of School Education, seeking approval of the removal of the 4th respondent from service. But the said request of the petitioner was not approved by the 3rd respondent, vide his proceedings dated 19.08.2002, on the ground that the proposed punishment of removal from service is very high and disproportionate to the charges framed against the 4th respondent for not obtaining the prior permission to go abroad and there was no other irregularity in her entire service, except the lapse on her part in not taking prior permission for her absence for a period of eight months. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent directed the Management of the petitioner High School to permit the 4th respondent to join duty with immediate effect, pending finalisation of disciplinary proceedings, and to finalise the disciplinary proceedings by reducing the punishment proposed against her. Aggrieved by the said order of the 3rd respondent, the petitioner High School filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent- Commissioner and Director of School Education and the 2nd respondent also, by his order dated 20.08.2003, confirmed the order of the 3rd respondent, requesting the Management of the Petitioner School to reduce the punishment proposed against her. The petitioner also filed a revision before the Government and the Government vide proceedings dated 25.10.2004 refused to interfere with the orders of the 3rd respondent as well as the 2nd respondent and also came to the opinion that the removal of the 4th respondent from service is disproportionate, but however, directed the Management of the petitioner School to impose suitable penalty commensurate with the gravity of the charges proved against the 4th respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the writ petition has been filed. 3. I have perused the relevant records and heard the rival contentions. 4. I am of the opinion that all the three authorities of the Government have come to the conclusion that the punishment of removal from service is excessive and disproportionate to the charges framed against the 4th respondent and, it is, therefore, just and proper to reconsider the quantum of punishment by reducing the same to any other punishment, having regard to the facts and circumstances that there was no remark in the entire service of the 4th respondent except the present lapse of leaving the School for a period of eight months without obtaining prior permission. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any irregularity or illegality in the orders of the 3rd respondent- Regional Joint Director, which was confirmed by the 2nd respondent- Commissioner & Director of School Education as well as the 1st respondent-Government, directing the Management of the petitioner High School to reinstate the 4th respondent and impose suitable penalty commensurate with the gravity of the charges proved against her. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH 22.07.2008 v v