IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3053 of 2008 Between: Ch. Rajesham, S/o. Durgaiah, O/o. Singareni Collieries Company Limited, High School, Sector-II, Godavarikhani, R/o. Qrt.No. D-5, Jawaharnagar, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Singareni Collieries Company Limited Educational Society, Rep. by its Secretary-Cum Correspondent/ Chief General manager, SCCL, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. 2 The District Education Officer, Karimnagar. 3 The Head Master, SCCL High School, Sector-II, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to call for the records from the Respondents herein by issuing a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the suspension order Ref.SCES/SEC/2007/905, dt. 1-6-2007 placing the petitioner under suspension and rejecting the request of the Petitioner by Ref.No. SCES/SEC/2007/2487, dt. 25-12- 2007 on the ground that the enquiry is under process as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to law, without application of mind, contrary to Section 79(3) (b) of A.P. Education Act, 1982 and also in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and grant all such benefits.a Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.SRIDHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR.NANDIGAM KRISHNA RAO The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3053 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is employed as a Clerk-cum-Typist by the Singareni Collieries Company Limited Educational Society, 1st respondent herein. Enquiries made by the 1st respondent, as to the functioning of the petitioner, when he was working at Singareni Collieries Company Limited High School Sector-III revealed that the petitioner tampered with the dates of birth of some of the students. On the basis of the enquiries, the petitioner was placed under suspension, through the order, dated 01.06.2007. Thereupon, the petitioner filed W.P.No.13103 of 2007, urging the ground that by the time, the order of suspension was passed, he has already been transferred to a different School viz., 3rd respondent herein. The writ petition was dismissed on 02.07.2007. This Writ Petition is filed assailing the very order of suspension, but on a different ground, viz., the violation of Section 79 of the A.P. Education Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act’). The respondents filed counter affidavit, stating that Section 79 of the Act has no application to the facts of the case, since different set of Rules had been adopted, to govern the service conditions of the employees of the 1st respondent. Heard Sri P.Sridhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. There is serious dispute as to the set of rules, which govern the service conditions of the employees of the 1st respondent. While the petitioner insists that the relevant provisions of the A.P. Education Act apply, the respondents contend that through a settlement among the 1st respondent and its employees, the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules are made applicable. The question as to whether such a resolution can override the provisions of the Act needs to be considered and examined at a proper stage. Whether or not Section 79 of the Act governs the facts of the case, the spirit thereof cannot be ignored. The Section mandates that in any private educational institution, an employee cannot be placed under suspension, for a period exceeding two months, at the initial stage, and for a further period of two months thereafter. In the instant case, the period of suspension has exceeded nine months. It is not at all in the interests of the institution, to keep the proceedings pending, for such a long time. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the respondents shall conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner before 30.04.2008. In case, the proceedings are not concluded by that date, the respondents shall be under obligation either to reinstate the petitioner into service, or to pay the full salary from May 2008 onwards. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 19.03.2008 Note: Issue C.C. by 24.03.2008 (B/o) JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3053 of 2008 Date: 19.08.2007 JSU