Back
2016 Supreme(AP) 184
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
A.V. SESHA SAI, J.
L.V. Pradeep - Appellant
Versus
Andhra University rep. by its Vice Chancellor, Visakhapatnam & Others - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 25868 of 2012
Decided on : 03-06-2016
For the Petitioner:Sri Addepalli Suryanarayana, Advocate.
For the Respondent:K. Jyothi Prasad, Advocate.
Headnote:
Employment and Service matter – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Employees Disciplinary Regulations – Rule 6(b) – Misconduct – Order of dismissal of petitioner from service – Challenged – Petitioner submitted explanation denying the allegations and requested respondents to furnish report of Enquiry Officer – In response to said request, respondents furnished Enquiry Officer’s report and subsequently after receipt of said report of Enquiry Officer, petitioner submitted another representation, pointing out various infirmities in Enquiry Officer’s report – Respondent-University passed order of dismissal, while referring resolution of Executive Council, wherein Executive Council of University took a decision to dismiss the petitioner basing of the report of the Enquiry Officer who framed the charge and conducted enquiry and submitted a report even before framing charge by the disciplinary authority – Said order of dismissal passed by the respondent-University is under challenge in the present writ petition – Held, a combined reading of the above provisions indicates that an inquiry officer can be appointed only after an explanation is received from an employee to the charge-sheet – Grounds on which the action is proposed are required to be reduced to form of a definite charges by disciplinary authority and the function of the inquiry officer is only to record findings as to proof or otherwise of the charges – In this case, the Executive Council of the University had straightaway appointed the Inquiry Officer and it was not preceded by issuance of charge memo, as contemplated under Rule 6(b), much less, an explanation from the petitioner – In addition to that, the charge memo was issued by the inquiry officer himself. Therefore, course of action adopted by the University is contrary to Rule 6 of Andhra University Administration Manual – Consequently first question needs to be answered in favour of petitioner – Setting aside the impugned proceedings – Writ petition is allowed.
The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service passed by the respondent–University vide proceedings No.S.III(2)/3344514/ 10, dated 26-06-2012.
The brief and relevant facts: In the present case, the respondent disciplinary authority appointed the Enquiry Officer on 15-04-2011 and the Enquiry Officer so appointed framed the following charge:
“You, while working as B.Ed. Assistant in the Andhra University High School were using abusive language and asked for sexual favours from the girl students and were using double meaning words in your conversation with some female teachers and as such, guilty of gross misconduct.”
On 19-09-2011, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report, holding the charge proved and the last paragraph of the said report reads as under:
“I am, therefore, of the opinion that the proceedings of the Women’s Grievances & Redressal Cell Exhibit C6 read with the report Exhibit C7, which states that there was some truth in the allegations has to be given credence. I, therefore, hold that charge against Mr. Pradeep is established and as such he is guilty of the same.”
Subsequently, the 1st respondent issued proceedings No.S.III(2)/3344514/10, dated 02-01-2012 under Rule 6 (b), Chapter XII of Andhra University Administration Manual framing the following charge while asking the petitioner to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against the petitioner:
“Sri L.V. Pradeep, while working as B.Ed. Assistant in Andhra University High School were using abusive language and asked for sexual favours from the girl students and where using double meaning words in his conversation with some female teachers and as such, guilty of gross misconduct.”
On 13-01-2012, the petitioner submitted explanation denying the allegations and requested the respondents to furnish the report of the Enquiry Officer. In response to the said request, on 06-03-2012 the respondents furnished the Enquiry Officer’s report and subsequently after receipt of the said report of the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner submitted another representation, dated 16-03-2012, pointing out various infirmities in the Enquiry Officer’s report. On 26-06-2012, the respondent-University passed the order of dismissal, while referring the resolution of the Executive Council, dated 01-03-2012, wherein the Executive Council of University took a decision to dismiss the petitioner basing of the report of the Enquiry Officer who framed the charge and conducted enquiry and submitted a report even before framing the charge by the disciplinary authority. The said order of dismissal passed by the respondent-University is under challenge in the present writ petition.
Submissions/contentions of Sri Addepalli Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Jyothi Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for respondent-University:
Learned counsel for the petitioner, attacks the order of dismissal mainly on three (3) grounds namely:
i) The Enquiry Officer has no power to frame a charge and enquire into the same and to submit a report basing on the same.
ii) As per Rule 6 (b), Chapter XII of Andhra University Administration Manual for initiation of disciplinary authority, it is incumbent and mandatory on the part of the disciplinary authority to frame charges and thereafter only the regular enquiry needs to be held by giving notice, opportunity to adduce evidence and to cross-examine the witnesses and the respondents in the instant case failed to adhere to the same.
iii) Even before furnishing the Enquiry Officer’s report the Executive Council passed a resolution on 01-03-2012, to dismiss the petitioner from service and the same is a clear infraction of Article 14 of the Constitution of India besides being violative of principles of natural justice.
In support of his submissions and contentions learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following judgments:
1. 2005 (3) ALT 632 (D.B.) [Paragraph No
