IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 4404 of 2008 Between: K.G.R.L. Degree College, Dirusumarru Road, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Secretary and Correspondent, M. Padmanabham, S/o. Appana, aged 72 yrs., R/o. State Bank Colony, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education (CE.II-I) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Higher Collegiate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Regional Joint Director Collegiate Education, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 4 Sri Bhogireddi Satyanarayana Murthy, S/o. Late Mutyala Rao Dirusumarru Road, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. .....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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the order of the Government of Andhra Pradesh in G.O.Rt.No.836 Higher Education (CE.II-I) Department dt. 22.09.2006 confirming the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Rc.No.5539-B1/198, dt. 18.06.1999, rejecting the proposal of the petitioner herein for dismissal of the 4th respondent from service as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, null and void and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 herein to permit the Petitioner to inflict on the 4th respondent herein the punishment of dismissal as proposed by the Petitioner herein and pass such further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri P. Rajagopal Rao Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Government Pleader for Education. The Court made the following O R D E R: This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the State Government in G.O.Rt.No. 836 Higher Education (CE.II-1) Department dated 22nd September 2006 confirming the proceedings of respondent No.3 - Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education at Rajahmundry, East Godavari District who rejected the proposal of the writ petitioner-college for imposing punishment of dismissal from service on respondent No.4. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Sans all unnecessary details, respondent No.4 has been working as a Lecturer in Political Science in the writ petitioner-degree college. Incidentally, he also discharged the functions as a Warden of the hostel attached to the institutions between the years 1989-90 and 1992-93. However, the State Social Welfare Department seems to have undertaken close scrutiny of records of the college and in particular, that of the hostel and for that purpose, appears to have deputed the Assistant Social Welfare Officer, Bhimavaram to undertake the job. The said officer has lodged a complaint with the Secretary and Correspondent of the petitioner-degree college on 17th September 1993 pointing out that respondent No.4 - Lecturer had threatened her and used abusive language against her. Therefore, the Assistant Social Welfare Officer has requested the Secretary and Correspondent of the college to protect her and also take appropriate action against the erring Lecturer. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Lecturer based thereon. However, the charge that has been laid against respondent No.4 comprised of two limbs; 1) that he has assaulted a public servant, who was discharging her duties and 2) or that at least he threatened the public servant by using vituperative language against her. An independent agency has been entrusted with the task of conducting the enquiry, which revealed that respondent No.4 -Lecturer has never assaulted the public servant as alleged, but however, the second limb of the charge namely; that he has used language which is considered to be abusive and not expected to be used by a person occupying the status of respondent No.4 against a public servant, was held proved. The management of the college has solicited the prior permission of the Regional Joint Director of Higher Education at Rajahmundry who is the competent authority for imposing the punishment of dismissal from service on respondent No.4. The competent authority had declined to accord any such permission whereon, the State Government has been moved by the writ petitioner. Though there was considerable amount of delay in moving the State Government, but nonetheless, the State Government had entertained the petition filed and accorded several opportunities to the petitioner herein to contest the case. In paragraph 5 of the impugned order passed by the State Government, they have categorically listed out the various dates on which the petition of the management had been posted for hearing and was adjourned at the request of the petitioner to enable the same to be contested. Not a single opportunity has been availed and in view of the enormity of time that is consumed in keeping the appeal pending, the State Government is compelled to consider the entire matter on merits. The State Government had assigned reasons as to why the extreme punishment of dismissal from service as proposed to be imposed by the management should not be allowed to be imposed against respondent No.4. It is a settled principle of law that appropriate punishment, which is commensurate with the quantum of guilt held established against any erring servant alone should be imposed. Too harsh and too sever a punishment which is disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct would only indicate the pre-determined approach of the employer to dispense with the services of the employee concerned. The anxiety on the part of any disciplinary agency should be to secure discipline by enforcing the same by appropriate measures, but at the same time, it does not concede the employer the licence to impose the harshest of punishments such as dismissal/removal from service irrespective of the nature or the quantum of guilt held established against the servant. It is, appropriate to point out that a rational exercise of discretion that is called for to be exercised by the disciplinary authority/employer. For sheer failure to properly exercise the discretion, it is the management of the college which has to be blame itself. While no teacher can ever indulge in using abusive language, which is doubtless, inconsistent with the very nature of the job required to be performed by him/her, but at the same time, no teacher should also be dealt with harshly only with a view to convey the displeasure and feelings of the management. The impugned order has been passed by the State Government in September 2006. There is no attempt made by the petitioner-college to approach this Court with any reasonable promptness. By belatedly instituting this writ petition, the writ petitioner is clearly indicating that it is intending to harass the Lecturer on one count or the other, rather than genuinely seeking to enforce discipline in the institution. For all the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage, but however, without costs. (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J) 3rd March 2008 ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}