IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 7388 of 2009 Between: P.Shashikant, S/o. P.Sridhar, AP College of Education, Duddeda, Mandal Kondapak, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Osmania University, Rep by its Registrar, Osmania University Campus, Hyderabad. 2 The AP College of Education, Duddeda, Mandal Kondapak, Medak District, Rep by its Principal. 3 The Secretary cum Correspondent, AP College of Education, Duddeda, Mandal Kondapak, Medak 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 to issue a writ or order or direction, especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus: i. declare the impugned Letter No.199/09-APCOE Dt. 21.3.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and set- as-side the same. ii. consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service, duly granting all otehr consequential benefits. iii. and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.VASUDEVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.DEEPAK BHATTACHARJEE The Court made the following : ORDER : This writ petition has been instituted by a Lecturer working in the 2nd respondent college. Since the 2nd respondent college has been affiliated to the Osmania University, the Osmania University through its proceedings dated 11.10.2006 conveyed the approval for the appointment of 8 members of teaching staff to the 2nd respondent college, one of whom is the writ petitioner. This writ petition has been directed against an order passed on 21.03.2009 by the Principal of the 2nd respondent college terminating the services of the writ petitioner with effect from 21.03.2009. Five reasons have been assigned for the drastic action taken against the writ petitioner. One was that the writ petitioner tampered the staff attendance register, which act according to the Principal, is an unpardonable one and continues to be so. The second reason was that the writ petitioner was said to have used unparliamentary language on the higher authority in the college premises. The third reason was that the writ petitioner has scandalized the dignity of the office of the Principal in front of the peons and the students of the college on 20.03.2009 between 2:10 PM and 2:50 PM. The fourth reason was that during the instructional hour, instead of teaching the relevant subject to the students, the writ petitioner was said to be guilty of narrating his personal problems to the students to gain their sympathy. The fifth allegation thrown against the writ petitioner was that he has disturbed the peace of the classrooms and he has also poisoned the healthy academic environment of the institution. It will be appropriate at this stage to notice that the Principal through his letter dated 19.03.2009 has called for the explanation of the writ petitioner for his absence from the college on 12th and 13th of March, 2009, without prior intimation or submitting the leave letter. It was also mentioned in the said letter that the writ petitioner has tampered the college staff attendance register for the said days. As was noticed already, the writ petitioner is now terminated for an event said to have been taken place on 20.03.2009, which is the next date to the date of show cause notice issued by the Principal. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the procedure prescribed for imposing the punishment of terminating the services was completely bypassed. This apart, the protection available under Section 79 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 (for short, ‘the Act’) has been completely breached. Sri P. Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 would submit that since the writ petitioner has admitted in his explanation submitted on 20.03.2009 the guilt of the misconduct, there is no further necessity to conduct any enquiry and hence, the services of the writ petitioner could be terminated straight away. He has drawn my attention to Page-14 of the material papers filed along with the vacate stay application moved on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3. The explanation dated 20.03.2009 said to have been submitted by the writ petitioner is absolutely in vague terms. Even assuming that it amounts to an admission on the part of the writ petitioner, for the misdemeanor alleged against him in the show cause notice dated 19.03.2009, which I doubt that it did, but, however, the order of termination dated 21.03.2009 has departed there from and has taken into consideration and account, the act said to have been committed by the writ petitioner on 20.03.2009 between 2.10 PM to 2.50 PM. Such allegations were never the subject matter of the show cause notice dated 19.03.2009. It is, therefore, crystal clear that the services of the writ petitioner were terminated, for totally un-disclosed reasons to him. There is a further grave infirmity in the impugned order which has been passed by the Principal of the educational institution. Principal of the college, not being the employer or the appointing authority, has no such powers to terminate the services of a Lecturer. In fact, the Principal of a college does not answer the description of a ‘Manager’ of a private educational institution in terms of Section 24 of the Act. Learned counsel comes up with a readymade answer that the management of the college has delegated such powers in favour of the Principal. No such orders of delegation at the first place have been placed in the paper book. This apart, disciplinary function, being an inherent power of an employer, cannot be delegated to someone else. Therefore, for want of competence on the part of the Principal to terminate the services of the writ petitioner, the impugned order is liable to be set at naught. This apart, no proper procedure, let alone a reasonable and fair one has been followed while passing the impugned order. A reading of the impugned order, un-mistakably, leaves the impression that it casts a stigma. Before the services of any employee are terminated, it is elementary that a fair and reasonable procedure should be adopted in conformity with the principles of natural justice. For violation of such procedure, the impugned order deserves to be set at naught. Sub-section (1) of Section 79 of the Act clearly creates an embargo, setting out that no teacher or member of the non-teaching staff employed in any private institution shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank except after an enquiry, in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. The proviso added thereto further makes it clear that no such order of dismissal or removal shall be passed without the prior approval of such authority as has been prescribed. Apparently, this provision contained under Section 79(1) of the Act has been followed in the breach by Respondents 2 and 3. The answer furnished by Sri P. Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel for Respondents 2 and 3, is that the State Government as well as the Osmania University have accorded the necessary permission to the management to administer the college in terms of the bye-laws of the society which established the educational institution. Such a contention cannot be countenanced, for the reason that the statute supercedes any such arrangement contained in any bye-laws of any educational institution. Bye-laws of any educational institutions are self-made and they are not enforceable by any party. They only bind those who enter into a contract for formation of such bye-laws, whereas Section 79 binds the private educational institutions like that of the 2nd respondent college. Therefore, for violation of the statutory provision contained under Section 79 of the Act, the impugned order dated 21.03.2009 shall stand set aside. Though the writ petitioner solicited reinstatement back into service, but, however, on his own volition, it appears he has tendered resignation as a Lecturer to the college on 01.07.2009 and according to Sri Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.2 and 3, it has been promptly accepted on the same day. In view of the resignation submitted by the writ petitioner with effect from 01.07.2009, the relief of reinstatement back into service is not liable to be granted in this case. Therefore, the orders passed by the 2nd respondent on 21.03.2009 terminating the services of the writ petitioner are set at naught. Consequently, the writ petitioner shall be treated as deemed to have continued in service till 01.07.2009. The 1st respondent, Osmania University, has been impleaded quite needlessly to this writ petition in the matter of termination of the employment of the writ petitioner. The 1st respondent university has no control or any regulatory exercise in respect of termination of any teacher working in any affiliated college. The appointment of the writ petitioner being in a private aided educational institution, the approval has been accorded by the Osmania University for his appointment. Thereafter, the Osmania University will have no role to play, particularly in matters relating to the termination of employment of either teaching or non- teaching staff in a private educational institution. Therefore, the writ petition has been dismissed as against the 1st respondent Osmania University, as it is not a necessary or proper party. For unnecessarily bothering the Osmania University by this litigation, the writ petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) to it. The costs shall be paid within 15 days from today. To the extent indicated above, the writ petition is allowed with costs of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One thousand and five hundred only) payable by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to the writ petitioner. _________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J Dated July 14, 2009 KSH