THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 28744 of 2009 Dated: 29.01.2010 Between: Prof.N.V.Subba Raju … Petitioner And Sagi Ramakrishnam Raju Engineering College, West Godavari District and 2 others. … Respondents THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 28744 of 2009 O R D E R : The petitioner herein is working as Professor in the 1st respondent-college. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the proceedings of the Secretary and Correspondent of the 1st respondent-college dated 24.12.2009 under which a Disciplinary Committee was appointed to conduct disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner and five charges were framed calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation within seven days to the Enquiry Officer of the Disciplinary Committee and show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him on the said charges as arbitrary and illegal. Under the impugned proceedings, petitioner was also placed under suspension pending enquiry with retrospective effect from 22.09.2009. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record as well as the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. The impugned action of the 1st respondent is assailed contending that the procedure followed by the 1st respondent in appointing the Enquiry Officer even before considering the petitioner’s explanation is contrary to law. It is also contended that as per Section 79(3)(b) of the A.P. Education Act, 1982, the suspension cannot exceed two months and at any rate, the suspension cannot be with retrospective effect. It is apparent from the impugned order itself that the Enquiry Officer was appointed by the 1st respondent-disciplinary authority even before the charge sheet was issued. Thus, it is clear that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit his explanation before appointing the Enquiry Officer. The law is well settled that the need to appoint Enquiry Officer would arise only where disciplinary authority is not satisfied with the explanation offered by the delinquent. As the procedure followed by the respondents in appointing the Enquiry Officer even before hearing the petitioner on the allegations made against him being ex facie arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of leaving it open to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings following due process of law. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 29.01.2010 KLP