HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:8964 OF 2007 Dated: 28.6.2010 Between: P.Murli Krishna ..PETITIONER Vs. Govt. of A.P rep by its Commissioner & others. …RESPONDENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:8964 OF 2007 ORDER: Though interlocutory matter is listed, at the request of learned counsel for petitioner also learned counsel for 3rd respondent, this writ petition itself is disposed of. The petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Assistant in the 3rd respondent-College on 14.6.1991. For some time, he was absent during the year 2006 and 2007 and he was not attending duties in the college. When he wanted to join, 3rd respondent- college did not allow him to join the college. At that stage, the writ petition was filed in the year 2007 questions action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to join duty mainly on the ground that he was not removed from service and such action on the part of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to join duty without even passing any order of removal, is in violation of section 74 and 83 of the A.P Education Act. By order dated 11.9.2007 passed in W.P.M.P.No:11470 of 2007, this Court granted directions to the respondents. It is not in dispute that in view of the said interlocutory order passed by this Court, the petitioner is being continued as Junior Assistant since then continuously. In the counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner by applying the leave on medical grounds, was attending private contracts at Bellari, Karnataka State and misused the leave and caused inconvenience to the work and the students in the 3rd respondent-college. Further, it is stated that the 3rd respondent-college is proposing to conduct a detailed enquiry on the unauthorized absence of the petitioner to the college and attending his contract works in Bellari, Karnataka State. Even according to the averments in the counter-affidavit, the services of the petitioner were not terminated on any ground. Even for any unauthorized absence of the petitioner and any other misconduct on his part, while it is open for the respondents to take disciplinary action to pass appropriate orders, but even without initiating the disciplinary action, the respondents cannot simply deny the petitioner to join to his duties. In view of the submissions in the counter and as the respondents are not disputing the employment of the petitioner and as there is also no indication of passing any order terminating the services of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to continue the petitioner in service as per the terms of his appointment. It is made clear that if there is unauthorized absence and mis conduct on the part of the petitioner, this order will not preclude the respondents to conduct necessary enquiry and pass appropriate orders. Subject to the above direction to the extent as indicated above, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________________ Justice R. Subhash Reddy Dated: 28.6.2010 Gurc. HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:8964 OF 2007 28.6.2010