IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:8126 of 1998 Between: P.Jagannadha Rao S/o Late Suryanarayana Bobbili, Vizianagaram District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Rajah R.S.R.K.Ranga Rao College Rep.by its Chairman & Correspondent. Bobbili,Vizianagaram District. 2 Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Andhra Pradesh,Hyderabad. 3 Regional Joint Director of Higher Education, Rajahmundry. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for Respondent No.1: MR.KURITI BHASKARA RAO Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3:GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to take petitioner No.1 into service with all the benefits and continuation of service increments etc. from 17.09.1994 by declaring the order of termination, dated 11.11.1997 passed by respondent No.1 as illegal and arbitrary. During the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner No.1 died on 15.07.2006. Therefore, petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are brought on record as his legal representatives. Heard Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, who was requested by the Court to assist in the case on behalf of the petitioners, Sri K.Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education for respondent Nos.2 and 3. For convenience sake, petitioner No.1 is hereinafter referred to as the petitioner. The petitioner was a lecturer in Politics in respondent No.1 college. He was given additional charge of Principal of the college from 1987. He was served with charge memo, dated 03.04.1992 wherein it was alleged that he committed irregularities as in-charge Principal during 1989-90. Later, he was suspended and on his approaching this Court by way of Writ Petition No.11462 of 1992, wherein a direction was given for his reinstatement, he was taken back into service. However, after holding enquiry, the petitioner was removed from service vide memo No.35/94- 95, dated 17.09.1994 issued by respondent No.1. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.16737 of 1994 questioning the said termination order. WPMP.No.20751 of 1994 filed by him in the said writ petition for suspension of order of termination, was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 03.10.1994. The petitioner then filed Writ Appeal No.1374 of 1994 wherein a Division Bench of this Court by interim order, dated 22.11.1994 directed the respondents to pay salaries to the petitioner by giving liberty to respondent No.1 either to utilise his services or not. The said Writ Appeal was disposed of on 03.04.1995. By order, dated 11.10.1996, the learned Single Judge allowed Writ Petition No.16737 of 1994 and set aside termination order, dated 17.09.1994. The learned Single Judge, however, directed the respondents to hold an enquiry into the allegations relating to charge Nos.3 and 4 after giving an opportunity to the petitioner and pass appropriate reasoned order after furnishing enquiry report to him. A fresh enquiry was thereafter conducted into charge Nos.3 and 4 and the enquiry officer submitted his report on 09.02.1997, based on which, notice was issued to the petitioner on 23.04.1997 by respondent No.1. After seeking extension of time twice, the petitioner did not file his explanation. Respondent No.1 passed order on 11.11.1997 terminating the petitioner’s services. At the hearing, Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners at the request of this Court, submitted that the impugned order of termination suffers from illegalities. He further submitted that even without giving time to the petitioner, the impugned order was passed. He further submitted that the petitioner was denied salary from 03.04.1995 up to the date of termination i.e. 11.11.1997, which is legitimately due to him. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the order of termination does not suffer from any illegalities. As regards the salary payable to the petitioner between 03.04.1995 and 11.11.1997, he submitted that respondent No.1 has no objection for payment, if respondent Nos.2 and 3 sanction grant-in-aid. The learned Government Pleader for Higher Education appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that as the petitioner was legally entitled to receive the salaries during the said period, respondent Nos.2 and 3 cannot have any legal objection, if respondent No.1 sends necessary proposals for release of grant-in-aid for that period. As regards the validity of the order of termination, a perusal of the record shows that the following five charges were framed: 1. As per the enquiry reports received from various Government Officials, it is clear that you have misappropriated the scholarship amount of nine Backward Class students of different classes during your tenure as Principal-in-Charge. Thus, you have failed to perform the duties in an honest and responsible manner and as a result Government funds were misappropriated by you. 2. As per the Proceedings Rc.No.1384/83-1/91-92/dated 21.5.1992 issued by the Director of Higher Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, it is very clear you have forged the signature of Mr. A.Srinivasa Rao, I B.Sc., student during 1989-90 and misappropriated the amount of Rs.1,372/-. 3. You provoked the Students Union leaders by making false allegations against the management to the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, A.P., Hyderabad and unnecessarily interfering in the day to day affairs of the Institution. This is proved by the corrections you made in the complaint with your own hand writing. 4. You are frequently making false representations against the staff, the acting Principal and Management of the College without submitting them through proper channel. 5. In the Writ Petition No.11462 of 1992 you have prayed the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh to impose a fine and arrest the Correspondent falsely stating that you are being victimized.” In Writ Petition No.16737 of 1994, the learned Single Judge set aside the termination order on the grounds that it did not contain reasons; that the petitioner was not served with the enquiry report and that no enquiry was conducted in respect of charge Nos.3 and 4. The learned Single Judge opined that there was no necessity to hold any enquiry into charge No.5. After remand, enquiry was conducted into charge Nos.3 and 4 by the Principal, Government Degree College, Salur, who was appointed as enquiry officer. He submitted his report on 09.02.1997 wherein he found the petitioner guilty of both the charges for causing indiscipline among the students by making false imputation against the management. Though show cause notice, dated 23.04.1997 was issued by respondent No.1 to the petitioner for submitting his explanation, the petitioner made representation, dated 03.05.1997 requesting for further time till 30.05.1997 and he again made a similar request on 30.05.1997 to extend time till 06.06.1997. The petitioner failed to submit his explanation till 11.11.1997, when the order of termination was passed. A perusal of the termination order shows that the governing body of respondent No.1 college examined the two enquiry reports, wherein the petitioner was found guilty of charges 1 to 4, and it is stated in the order that the post of Principal is a responsible and respectable post and that the petitioner’s conduct and character plays a vital role in moulding the character of students and in projecting the image of the institution in public. It is further stated that keeping all the facts into consideration, the management of the college has decided to request the competent authority to accord approval for termination of the petitioner’s services and accordingly, the competent authority vide his proceedings, dated 08.10.1997 approved the said proposal. It is also stated that on the basis of the enquiry report, it has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of financial irregularities including misappropriation of funds, forgery of signatures of students in withdrawing the scholarship funds and instigation of students against the management. In my considered view, neither the order by which the petitioner’s services were terminated nor the enquiry proceedings, which culminated in passing of the said order suffer from any legal infirmities or procedural impropriety warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is rejected. With regard to the claim for payment of salary, the admitted facts are that the petitioner was paid salary as per the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court vide its interim order, dated 22.11.1994 passed in Writ Appeal No.1374 of 1994, which was disposed of on 03.04.1995 with the observation that no salary need be paid to the petitioner. Consequently, payment of salary was stopped from that date. On 11.10.1996, the learned Single Judge disposed of Writ Petition No.16737 of 1994, wherein she set aside termination order, dated 17.09.1994. The petitioner’s services were again terminated on 11.11.1997. When once the earlier termination order was set aside, it legally follows that the said order was not in existence at any earlier point of time. Therefore, the petitioner is legitimately entitled to receive the salaries and all other monetary benefits till such time, as his services were again terminated on 11.11.1997. In view of this undeniable position in law, the petitioner is entitled to payment of salaries up to 11.11.1997. Since the petitioner was holding a grant-in-aid post, his salaries shall be calculated and paid in accordance with the pay scale applicable to such post. The writ petition is accordingly, allowed to the extent of payment of salary only for the period from 03.04.1995 till 11.11.1997 and is dismissed insofar as it relates to challenge to the termination order is concerned. Respondent No.1 shall send proposals to the competent authority for releasing of grant-in-aid, within a period of four (4) weeks and on receipt of the same, the competent authority shall release the grant-in-aid within a period of eight (8) weeks thereafter. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 18th DECEMBER, 2008. kvni