Back
1996 Supreme(AP) 260
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : C.V.N.SASTRY
Vemuri Ramakanta Sarma, Lecturer, a.V.S.Junior College, Pulletikurru - Appellant
Versus
Adarsha Vidya Samithi, V.V.Ramanujachary, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 04-01-96
The requirement of prior approval of the competent authority and the issuance of a second show-cause notice against the proposed punishment are essential requirements of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings against employees of private institutions.
Headnote:
EDUCATION - PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS - DISCIPLINARY ACTION - REDUCTION IN RANK - REQUIREMENT OF PRIOR APPROVAL - SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE - NATURAL JUSTICE - REMAND TO MANAGEMENT FOR FRESH DECISION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a principal of a private college, was reduced in rank to junior lecturer by the management of the college. The petitioner challenged the order on the grounds that it was passed without the prior approval of the competent authority as required by the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982, and that he was not given a second show-cause notice against the proposed punishment as required by the Andhra Pradesh Private Institutions Employees (Disciplinary Control) Rules, 1983.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the proviso to Section 79(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982, which requires prior approval of the competent authority for an order of dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank, was not operative in the present case as the prescribed authority had not been created or nominated and no rules in this behalf had been framed. The court also held that the failure to issue a second show-cause notice to the petitioner against the proposed punishment violated the principles of natural justice.
Issues: 1. Whether the order of reduction in rank was illegal for want of prior approval by the competent authority? 2. Whether the order was in violation of the requirement of a second show-cause notice against the proposed punishment?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The proviso to Section 79(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982, which requires prior approval of the competent authority for an order of dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank, was not operative in the present case as the prescribed authority had not been created or nominated and no rules in this behalf had been framed. 2. The failure to issue a second show-cause notice to the petitioner against the proposed punishment violated the principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of reduction in rank and remitted the matter back to the management of the college to pass orders afresh after giving a show-cause notice to the petitioner as contemplated by Rule 7(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Private Institutions Employees (Disciplinary Control) Rules, 1983.
( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioner questions the legality and validity of the order dated 5-6-1987 reducing him to the rank of Junior Lecturer from the post of Principal in the 3rd respondent junior college, which was confirmed by the state Government by its order dated 30-1-89. The facts leading to the writ petition may be stated briefly.
( 2 ) THE petitioner was appointed as Principal of A. V. S. Jr. College, pulletikurru, East Godavari District which is a private institution recognised and aided by the State Government, in the year 1974. In the year 1983, the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice by the Management of the college alleging certain irregularities and calling for his explanation. After he submitted his explanation to the show cause notice, a retired Subordinate Judge was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry into the allegations against the petitioner.
( 3 ) THE petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 11-11-1983 pending enquiry into the charges against him. After holding the enquiry, the enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. Thereupon, the Managing Committee met on 22-5-87 and resolved to impose the penalty of reduction in rank as Jr. Lecturer on the petitioner w. e. f. 8-6-1987 and accordingly, the impugned order dated 5-6-1987 was issued by the President of the Managing Committee.
( 4 ) QUESTIONING the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the competent authority and Regional Joint Director of Higher Education, rajahmundry (4th respondent herein ). The 4th respondent allowed the said appeal filed by the petitioner by his order dated 9-1-1988 and consequently, set aside the order dated 5-6-1987 issued by the President of the Managing committee of the college and directed that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been restored to his original position i. e. Principal of A. V. S. Jr. College, pulletikurru.
( 5 ) QUESTIONING the said order passed by the 4th respondent, the management of the college preferred as second appeal to the State Government (6th respondent ). By its order dated 30-1-1989, the State Government allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 9-1-1988 passed by the 4th respondent and upheld the order dated 5-6-1987 of the management of the college reducing the petitioner to the rank of Jr. Lecturer. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
( 6 ) SRI V. Parabramha Sastry, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions in support of the writ petition : (1) The order inflicting the penalty of reduction in rank against the petitioner is illegal and unsustainable as the same was passed without the prior approval of the competent authority as required under the proviso to sub-section 1 of Section 79 of the Andhra Pradesh Education act, 1982. (2) The said order is bad as the second show cause notice against the proposed punishment was not issued to the petitioner as required under Rule 7 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Private Institutions Employees (Disciplinary Control) Rules, 1983. (3) The State Government (R-6) disposed of the appeal without any hearing and as such, its order is vitiated and it is opposed to the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel submits that the hearing before the 6th respondent was purely confined to the question of grant of the interim order only and there was no hearing of the appeal as such. (4) In any case, as the petitioner was appointed to the substantive post of principal, he cannot be reduced to the rank of Jr. Lecturer in mathematics, which is non-existent and un-aided.
( 7 ) ON the other hand, Sri D. V. Sita Rama Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the Managementof the college has contended that proviso to Sec. 79 (1) of the a. P. Education Act which was incorporated by Act27 of 1987w. e. f. l-6-1987 has no application to the instant case, since the e
