IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3180 of 2009 Between: Dr. Syed Muhamed Ul Hashmi S/o. Syed Mahamood Ul Hashmi School of Middle East and African Studies, Department of Arabic Studies, The English and Foreign Languages, University of Hyderabad. R/o.18-7-425/63/10, Bhavani Nagar, Talab Katta, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The English and Foreign Language University, (A Central University Established by an Act of Parliament) rep. by its Registrar, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Registrar, The English and Foreign Language University, Hyderabad. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.RAJENDRA BABU Counsel for the Respondents: SRI M.SATYANARAYANA GOUD FOR SRI K.RAMAKANTH REDDY (STANDING COUNSEL FOR ENGLISH AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES UNIVERSITY) The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 29-01-2009 passed by respondent No.2. Heard Sri A.Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri M.Satyanarayana Goud, learned counsel representing Sri K.Ramakanth Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. In pursuance of notification dated 14-08-2008, issued by respondent No.1, the petitioner applied for one post of Guest Lecturer in Arabic, Centre for Arabic Studies, School of Foreign Languages. He was selected by the Selection Committee constituted for this purpose and was appointed as Guest Lecturer in the above mentioned department for one academic year with effect from the date he reports for duty. A sum of Rs.250/- per lecture/per hour with a maximum limit of Rs.10,000/- per month is fixed as the petitioner’s remuneration. By order dated 29-01-2009, respondent No.2 dispensed with the services of the petitioner. This order is questioned in the present writ petition. One of the grounds raised by the petitioner in the writ petition is that as his appointment is for a duration of one year, the respondents have no power to dispense with his services before the expiry of the said term. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Registrar of respondent No.1- University, it is, inter alia, stated that in the report submitted by the Dean School of Middle East and African Studies, it is stated as under- “Mr. Sayed Muhamid Ul Hashmi who was appointed as Guest Lecturer according to office order dated 12 September, 2008 for N.EFL-U/Admn./F.1889/2008/1929 is not regular in teaching in the class and many times absent without written permission from authorities. He is not discharging his official duties assigned to him properly and there are written and verbal complaints against him from the student that his way of teaching is not good. Head of the department of Arabic Languages and Linguistic also has complained against him in writing. Looking at irresponsible behaviour of Mr. Sayed Muhamid Ul Hashmi and grievances of the students against him, the School of Middle East and African Studies, no more requires his services. SD/- Prof.Mohsin Usmani, Dean School of Middle East and African Studies…..” It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner absented himself without information; there were complaints from the students for his irregularity, non-punctuality and casual mode of teaching and that he travelled outside India without informing the Office and taking formal permission. The above reasons, according to the respondents, constituted the grounds for dispensing with the services of the petitioner. In my considered view, the impugned order suffers from two legal lacunae. Firstly, the order appointing the petitioner is for a fixed duration of one year. No power is reserved with the respondents to dispense with the services of the petitioner, prior to the expiry of the said period. Secondly, though the impugned order does not cast a stigma on the petitioner, the contents of the counter clearly reveal that the foundation for dispensing with the petitioner’s services was misconduct or negligence and the same casts stigma on him. The law is well settled that where the foundations for termination of an employee, whether permanent or temporary, is misconduct or negligence, even if the order appears to be termination simplicitor, such an order cannot be sustained, unless it was preceded by holding of an enquiry into the allegations leading to the passing of the order of termination. I n Radhey Shyam Gupta v. U.P.State Agro Industries Corporation Limited[1], the Supreme Court held- “But in cases where the termination is preceded by an enquiry and evidence is received and findings as to misconduct of a definitive nature are arrived at behind the back of the officer and where on the basis of such a report, the termination order is issued, such an order will be violative of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the purpose of the enquiry is to find out the truth of the allegations with a view to punish him and not merely to gather evidence for a future regular departmental enquiry. In such cases, the termination is to be treated as based or founded upon misconduct and will be punitive. These are obviously not cases where the employer feels that there is a mere cloud against the employee’s conduct but are cases where the employer has virtually accepted the definitive and clear findings of the enquiry officer, which are all arrived at behind the back of the employee-even though such acceptance of findings is not recorded in the order of termination. That is why the misconduct is the foundation and not merely the motive in such cases.” For the above reasons, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is, accordingly, quashed. The petitioner is entitled to continue till the expiry of one year from the date of his reporting to duty as Guest Lecturer in Arabic, Centre for Arabic Studies, School of Foreign Languages unless his services are terminated after holding regular enquiry before the expiry of the said period. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 9th April, 2009 vrn Note: Issue CC in one week [1] (1999) 2 SCC 21