Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : N.V.RAMANA, S.B.SINHA
TAGORE HOME JUNIOR COLLEGE, EAST MAREDPALLY, SECUNDERABAD - Appellant
Versus
P.P.A.CHRISTIAN - Respondent
Decided On : 04-13-01
Andhra pradesh Education Act, 1982 - Subsection (1) of Section 79, 80, Sub-section (2) of Section 80, 79, 80 and 83 read with Section 99 – Disciplinary action – Order of punishment - State of Andhra Pradesh with aview to protect the teaching and non-teaching staff has enacted the Andhra pradesh Education Act, 1982 - Chapter XIV of the Act inter alia provides for disciplinary action against employees of private institutions - Subsection of Section of the Act inter alia states that no employee shall be dismissed - Except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect thereof and further such an order of punishment shall not be passed without the prior approval of such authority or officer as may be prescribed for different classes of private institutions - Section provides for an appeal before the competent authority. Sub-section lays down the grounds upon which the appellate authority can interfere with the order appealed against - Section provides for an appeal before the Government - allegations as are not admitted and the person charged shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses called as he may wish provided that the authority conducting the inquiry may for special and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing refuse to call a witness - After the inquiry has been completed the person charged shall be entitled to put in if he so desires - Proceedings shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence and a statement of the findings and the grounds thereof - After examining the report of the inquiring authority or where no enquiry has been held on consideration of the statement of the defence of the person charged and other circumstances of the case the management shall arrive at a provisional conclusion in regard to the penalty to be imposed and the persons charged shall be called upon to show-cause within a reasonable time, not less than two weeks - Allegations or charges on which action is proposed to be taken or where it is proposed to impose the penalty on the ground of conduct which led to his conviction or on a criminal charge – Held, Court stee l - Principles of natural justice are required to be complied with, be it pre-decisional hearing or a post-decisional one depending on the facts and circumstances of each case - Authorities and any particular officer thereof to likely twist a case of this nature keeping in view the fact that right to continue in service is protected under Article 21 of the constitution of India - It was therefore obligatory on the part of the management to strictly comply with the statutory requirements - There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that where a delinquency of the nature of the present case is concerned the delinquent cannot be treated with sympathy or mercy as has been held by the Court and Apparel Export Promotion council s case but before a ratio decidendi is laid down and the said decisions of the Apex Court can be applied – Court are of the opinion that the impugned judgment is unassailable - Mattermay now be placed before the competent authority for grant of prior approval in terms of the proviso appended to sub- section of Section of the Act - In the event such prior approval is granted, the matter shall be placed before the management so as to enable it to pass an appropriate order after applying its mind – Court hope and trust that the proceedings will be concluded at an early date and the orders will be passed as early as possible - Appeals are dismissed.
( 1 ) "he who takes the procedural sword shall perish with the sword" said frankfurter, J. in Viteralli vs. Seaton.
( 2 ) THE State of Andhra Pradesh with aview to protect the teaching and non-teaching staff has enacted the Andhra pradesh Education Act, 1982, (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity ). Chapter XIV of the Act inter alia provides for disciplinary action against employees of private institutions. Subsection (1) of Section 79 of the Act inter alia states that no employee shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank, except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him, given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect thereof, and further such an order of punishment shall not be passed without the prior approval of such authority or officer as may be prescribed for different classes of private institutions. Section 80 provides for an appeal before the competent authority. Sub-section (2) of Section 80 lays down the grounds upon which the appellate authority can interfere with the order appealed against. Section 81 provides for an appeal before the Government.
( 3 ) IN exercise of its power conferredupon it under Sections 79, 80 and 83 read with Section 99 of the said Act, the government of the State of Andhra Pradesh had framed rules known as the Andhra pradesh Private Institutions Employees (Disciplinary Control) Rules, 1983 (hereinafter called as the Rules for the sake of brevity ). Rule 5 of the Rules provides for the penalties, which may be imposed. Sub- rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Rules states that no employee shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank by an authority subordinate to the management of the private institution. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of the Rules provide for mode and the manner in which an inquiry shall be conducted, which reads thus:"7. (1) xxx (2) In every case, where it is proposed to impose any of the penalties specified in sub-section (1) of Sec. 79, the grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges, which shall be communicated to the person charged together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and of any other circumstances, which it is proposed to take in consideration in passing orders in such case. He shall be required within a reasonable time to put in a written statement of this defence and to state whether he desires an oral enquiry or only to be heard in person. For the purpose of preparing his defence, the charged person may be permitted to inspect and take extracts from such such records as he may specify, provided that the management may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse such permission if in its opinion such records are not relevant for the purpose or it is against the interests of the institution to allow access thereto. If an oral inquiry is desired by the person charged, the management shall appoint an inquiring authority, who shall be superior in rank to the charged person, to conduct the enquiry. At that inquiry, oral evidence may be heard as to such of the allegations as are not admitted and the person charged shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses called as he may wish, provided that the authority conducting the inquiry may, for special and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse to call a witness. After the inquiry has been completed, the person charged shall be entitled to put in, if he so desires, any further written statement of his defence. If no oral inquiry is held, and the person charged had desired to be heard in person, a personal hearing shall be given to him by the management. The proceedings shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence and a statement of the findings and the grounds thereof. After examining the report of the inquiring authority or where no enquiry has been held, on consideration of the statement of the defence of the person charged and
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
