IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.26896, 27641 & 27661 of 2008 W.P.No.26896/2008 Between: 1 The Commissioner Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan 18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi - 110 602. 2 The Deputy Commissioner (Academics) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan 18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi - 110 602. 3 The Assistant Commissioner Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan Regional Office: Picket, Secunderabad - 500 009. 4 The Educational Officer Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan 18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi - 110 602. 5 The Education Officer (Cenerning to CRPF., Barkas) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan Regional Office: Picket, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Smt. L.D. Sharada W/o. B. Suresh O/o. Kendriya Vidyalaya, C.R.P.F., Barkas, Hyderabad. (Under the orders of transfer to Kendriya Vidyalaya, O.F., Dehu Road, Maharashtra). R/o.H.No.10-1-693, J.B.R. Enclave, West Marredpally, Secunderabad. 2 Sri. M.M. Joshi The Deputy Commissioner (Academics) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi - 110 602. (R.2 is not necessary party of the present Writ Petition) .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue an order or direction, more particularly in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI to call for the records pertaining to OA.No. 578/2008 dt. 28-11-2008 to the extent of setting aside the orders went against the petitioners herein is contrary to law and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.B.NARASIMHA SARMA Counsel for the Respondents: MR.K.R.K.PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 27641 of 2008 1 The Commissioner, Kendriya vidyalaya Sangthan 18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi-110 602 2 The Educational Officer, Kendriya vidyalaya Sangthan 18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi-110 602 3 The Principal, Kendriya vidyalaya, Barkas Hyderabad. 4 The Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya vidyalaya Sangthan, Hyderabad Region, Picket, Hyderabad 5 The Education Officer and Disciplinary Authority, KVS Hyderabad Region, Picket, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND Ashok Kumar Gour, S/o. A.N Gour Kendriya Vidyalaya, Barkas, Hyderabad, R/o. H.No.100B, MIGH, Santhosh Nagar, Old City, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT 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 issue an order or direction, more particularly in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI to call for the records in O.A.No.583 of 2008 dated 5-12-2008 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad and to set aside the order declaring it as arbitrary, illegal and unjust and pass Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.B.NARASIMHA SARMA Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. K. Sudhakar Reddy WRIT PETITION NO : 27661 of 2008 1 The Commissioner Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan, 18, Institutional Area Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi. 2 The Educational Officer, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan, 18, Institutional Area Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi. 3 The Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya , Barkas Hyderabad. 4 The Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan, Hyderabad Region, Picket, Hyderabad. 5 The Education Officer and Disciplinary Authority, KVS Hyderabad Region, Picket, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND Sushma Chaturvedi D/o. M.M. Chaturvedi Kendriya Vidyalaya, Barkas, Hyderabad R/o. H.No. 16-11-759/5 Moosarambagh, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT 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 issue an order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Certiorari to call for the records in O.A.No.666 of 2008 dt.5.12.2008 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad and to set aside the Order declaring it as arbitrary, illegal and unjust and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.B.NARASIMHA SARMA Counsel for the Respondent: S. Suryaprakash Rao The Court made the following : ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) These writ petitions are filed for issuance of writ of certiorari to call for records pertaining to O.A.No.578 of 2008 dated 28.11.2008, O.A.No.583 of 2008 dated 5.12.2008 and O.A.No.666 of 2008 dated 5.12.2008 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, which went against the petitioners herein, and set aside the same declaring as arbitrary and illegal. It is stated that the respondents were working as Trained Graduate Teachers at Kendriya Vidyalaya, CRPF, Barkas, Hyderabad. As there was poor performance of students in the said school with declining enrolment in secondary classes, the second petitioner visited the said school by convening a meeting of Teachers of classes 10 and 12 to discuss the results of the said school and declining enrolment in the senior classes, along with Principal of Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1 Golconda and Principal of Kendriya Vidyalaya Bollaram. It was reported that during the said meeting, the respondents have used intemperate language and disrupted the proceedings of the meeting with unwarranted behavior, in spite of all efforts by the visiting officials. As their behavior being a prima facie case of misconduct violating the provisions of Education Code for the Kendriya Vidyalaya teachers, memorandum of charge dated 21.08.2008 was issued by the competent authority proposing to take action against the respondents under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 calling for explanation and ultimately the competent authority vide proceedings dated 8.09.2008 imposed minor punishment of stoppage of next increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents filed appeals, which are pending. In the meanwhile considering the administrative interest of the institution, the competent authority transferred the respondents from Kendriya Vidyalaya, Barkas to Kendriya Vidyalaya Ordinance Factory, Maharashtra by proceedings dated 8.9.2008, and they were relieved through proceedings dated 10.09.2008. The respondents submitted representations for their retention at Hyderabad on 12.09.2008 and 13.09.2008, which are also pending. Questioning the said transfer and relieving orders, the order of minor penalty and also the validity of para 8(iv) of transfer guidelines, the respondents filed O.A.Nos.578, 583 and 666 of 2008 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, which were allowed setting aside the orders of minor penalty, transfer and relieving orders, but upheld the validity of para 8(iv) of the transfer guidelines rejecting the contention of the applicant against the same. Hence these writ petitions. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned counsel for the respondents. Sri B. Narasimha Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that the Tribunal ought not to have entertained the O.As., inasmuch as the respondents filed appeals before the appellate authority questioning the imposition of minor punishment and the transfer order consequent to the imposition of disciplinary proceedings. It is further contended that when the higher officer came from Delhi to set right the things for smooth functioning of the meeting, the respondents have used unwarranted utterances and disrupted the whole meeting. When once the higher officer comes from Delhi to set right the things, such indiscipline in the educational institutions is impermissible and violative of Conduct Rules. Therefore, the respondents were imposed punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect, which is a minor penalty, for which there is no obligation to conduct any detailed enquiry. However show cause notice was issued on 21.08.2008 and the punishment was imposed on 8.09.2008 under para 8(iv) of the New Transfer Guideline transferring the respondents outside Hyderabad. Pursuant to the transfer order, the applicants filed appeals on different dates and immediately on 14.09.2008 without waiting for the result of appeals on merits, they have approached the Tribunal and filed O.As. The learned counsel contended that having availed the alternative remedy by the respondents, the Tribunal ought not have entertained the O.As., and the applicants have to wait for the verdict of the appellate authority. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that there was no unwarranted utterances and intemperate language used by the respondents-teachers, and that they have just answered the Deputy Commissioner who visited the school for convening the meeting. Hence the Tribunal has rightly considered the O.As. in its proper perspective. It is relevant to have a look at para 8(iv) of the New Transfer Guidelines, came into force with effect from 14.03.2006, which reads as under. 8(iv) on grounds of misconduct or unsatisfactory performance, a evidenced by issue of a charge-sheet under Rule 14 of the CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 or imposition of a minor penalty under Rule 16 of the CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and having perused the impugned judgments rendered by the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that when once the respondents have approached the appellate authority and availed the opportunity of filing of appeal, the Tribunal ought not to have interdicted the departmental proceedings In view of the same, we set aside the orders passed by the Tribunal only to the extent of setting aside the imposition of minor punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. However, we direct the appellate authority to dispose of the appeals filed by the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the transfer order shall not be given effect to. It is always open for the applicants to raise all the pleas including the plea of competence of the officer, who has initiated the disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly, these three writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. ________________________ (GHULAM MOHAMMED, J.) ___________________________ (B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.) 26th December, 2008 Js.