IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:13452 of 1999 Between: M. Mastan Rao S/o. Mastan R/o. Sangam Jagarlamudi Village, Guntur District. His L.R.s are added ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 His Excellency The Chancellor of Nagarjuna University and the Governor of Andhra Pradesh, Raj Bhavan, Hyderabad. 2 The Nagarjuna University Rep. by its Vice Chancellor, Nagarjuna Nagar, Guntur. 3 The Registrar, Nagarjuna University Nagarjuna Nagar, Guntur. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondents:MR.SRINIVAS MANTHA The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside order, dated 16.12.1987 passed by respondent No.2 as confirmed by respondent No.1 vide his order, dated 11.04.1999. Petitioner No.1 was an Attender in respondent No.2 University. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, in which the following charges were framed: 1. In manipulating and correcting tabulated Results Registrar of M.Com. (Previous) July 1979 (Private Study) with a dishonest intention along with another employee to make candidate Sri P.Suryanarayana Murthy Registered No.954 who originally failed to pass on account of the said manipulation of records. 2. by replacing the concerned original sheet with another. 3. By correcting the original letter of “F” indicating failure as “P” for pass. 4. and dishonestly causing disappearance of original marks statements of Valuation and tabulated marks register of M.Com (previous) July 1979 (private study). The enquiry officer, who was appointed to conduct enquiry, submitted his report after holding regular enquiry into the charges. The enquiry officer held that charges 1 to 3 were held proved, while charge No.4 was held not proved. After considering explanation, dated 09.11.1987 submitted by petitioner No.1 to show cause notice, dated 28.09.1987, the Executive Council of respondent No.2 University vide it’s order, dated 16.12.1987 removed petitioner No.1 from service. He questioned the said order by way of Writ Petition No.19288 of 1987. As the said writ petition was dismissed, Writ Appeal No.1456 of 1991 was filed. The said Writ Appeal was disposed of by permitting petitioner No.1 to avail the remedy of appeal before respondent No.1. Accordingly, he filed an appeal, but the same was dismissed by respondent No.1 vide his order, dated 11.04.1999. These two orders are questioned in this writ petition. Though Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioners made valiant efforts to convince this Court to overturn the two orders of respondent Nos.1 and 2, having thoroughly examined the material on record, I have not felt persuaded to accept the request of the learned counsel. The charges are very grave in nature. Proper enquiry was held wherein misconduct of petitioner No.1 was held proved. Respondent No.1, who is the appellate authority applied his mind and confirmed the order of the disciplinary authority. Petitioner No.1 failed to point out violation of principles of natural justice or procedural illegality in the conduct of disciplinary proceedings. This Court is only concerned with decision making process and not with the merits of the decision. As petitioner No.1’s misconduct was proved with reference to the evidence, I am not inclined to interfere with the findings of the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the appellate authority. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 12th DECEMBER, 2008. kvni