IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 13420 of 1999 Between: C. Rama Krishna Rao S/o. Batcha Rao, Sri Varalakshmi Polytechnic, Machilipatnam, Krishna Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Technical Education, Govt.of A.P., 5th Floor, B.R.K. Building Complex, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad-63. 2 Regional Joint Director, Technical Education, Opp: Fire Station, Kakinada. 3 Sri Varalakshmi Polytechnic, rep.by its Secretary, Managing Committee, S.V.L. Polytechnic, Machilipatnam - 521 002. 4 The Principal S.V.L. Polytechnic, Machilipatnam-521 002. .....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 Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VENKATA RANGADAS KANURI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.13420 OF 1999 ORAL ORDER: The present writ petition is ﬁled challenging the Memo No.E3/40180/98 dated 26.04.1999 issued by the Commissioner of Technical Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, the ﬁrst respondent in the writ petition, on the ground that the same is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, apart from being violative of principles of natural justice. Heard Sri Venkata Ranga Das Kanuri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, and Sri K.Raji Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4. The petitioner was working as Oﬃce Superintendent in Sri Varalakshmi Polytechnic, Machilipatnam, the third respondent in the writ petition. While so, basing on the complaint made by the Secretary of Sri Varalakshmi Polytechnic Teaching and Non- teaching Staﬀ Welfare Association, Machilipatnam, the Commissioner of Technical Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, initiated enquiry into the irregularities committed by the Management of the third respondent-College in respect of the petitioner. The impugned Memo dated 26.04.1999 records the fact that the Regional Director of Technical Education, Kakinada, enquired into the matter and submitted a detailed enquiry report wherein he highlighted the following irregularities: 1) The appointment of the petitioner as Oﬃce Superintendent is irregular as he had not passed Accounts Test; 2) The petitioner’s promotion as Administrative Oﬃcer is irregular; 3) The payment of ﬁve increments to the petitioner is irregular; 4) Payment of construction allowance of Rs.240/- is irregular; 5) Merging of construction allowance into Basic pay and payment of salary for certain period is irregular; 6) Proposal for merging construction allowance in the Revised Pay Scales and proposal for payment of arrears with retrospective effect is irregular; and 7) Payment of advance of Rs.75,000/- to the petitioner is irregular. Basing on the said enquiry report, the Commissioner of Technical Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, by way of the impugned Memo directed recovery of excess amount paid to the petitioner including the advance of Rs.75,000/-. The complaint of the petitioner before this Court in the present writ petition is that he was not given any opportunity to present his case, be it before the Regional Joint Director, during the so-called enquiry or by the ﬁrst respondent before passing the impugned Memo. The third respondent-College ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit justifying its actions so far as the alleged irregularities committed by it in connection with the petitioner are concerned. The learned Government Pleader for Higher Education basing upon the para-wise remarks, submitted before this Court that the action was taken by the ﬁrst respondent basing upon the Enquiry Report submitted by the Regional Joint Director of Technical Education, Kakinada. So far as the aspect of the denial of opportunity to the petitioner is concerned, the learned Government Pleader is unable to put forth any valid or tenable defence. In view of the complete denial of opportunity to the petitioner, both in the course of the enquiry said to have been conducted by the Regional Joint Director of Technical Education, Kakinada, and also before the ﬁrst respondent prior to passing of the impugned Memo, it is manifest that there is blatant violation of the principles of natural justice and the impugned Memo was issued basing upon an enquiry conducted behind the back of the petitioner. The petitioner was never put on notice with regard to the enquiry initiated into various aspects of the conditions of his service, including his very appointment and the ﬁndings of the Enquiry Oﬃcer, obtained by keeping the petitioner in the dark, cannot be sustained. The impugned Memo which was issued basing upon the ﬁndings in the said enquiry is equally illegal and void. The prejudice caused to the petitioner by this blatant disregard of the Rule of ‘Adui Alteram Partem’ is manifest. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned Memo No.E3/40180/98 dated 26.04.1999 passed by the Commissioner of Technical Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. There shall be no orders as to costs. ____________________ P.V.SANJAY KUMAR, J. 28th August, 2008. VGSR