Back
In the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad
M.N. RAO AND B.K. SOMASEKHARA, JJ.
Dr. Sr. Y. Philomena, Principal & Correspondent, St. Ann's College for Women, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad – Appellant
Versus
Government of A.P., Education, rep. by the Principal Secretary, Hyderabad and others - Respondents.
Writ Appeal No. 230 of 1994
Decided on : 22-07-1994
Headnote:
[MAIN LEGAL POINT] The impugned order of suspension and the initiation of criminal proceedings are vitiated due to such violations of principles of natural justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the Principal and Correspondent of St. Ann's Degree College for Women, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad, was transferred to St. Ann's Generalate, Guntur by the 7th respondent, the Superior General of that Society. The petitioner challenged the transfer order on various grounds, including mala fides, in Writ Petition No. 7412/1992 before the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the transfer order. The petitioner took the matter in appeal (W.A. No. 612/92) to a Division Bench of the High Court comprising Hon'ble Sri Justice V. Sivaraman Nair and Hon'ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Rao. That appeal was also allowed by the same Division Bench on 10-8-1992. The leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, made to the Division Bench was rejected. The Special Leave Petition against the judgment in W.A. No. 612/92 presented to the Supreme Court came to be dismissed on 21-9-1992. The respondents there in sought to review the matter by the Supreme Court and that came to be dismissed on 4-11-1992. While that be so, the present respondents 7 to 14 proposed to convene the General Body Meeting of the Society of the St. Ann's College for Women, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad on 30-7-1992 and issued a notice dated 1-7-1992 to that effect and one of the subjects on the agenda was certain alleged undesirable activities of the petitioner as Secretary of the Society and the Correspondent and Principal of the said College. After the Writ Appeal No. 612/92 was allowed setting aside the order of transfer of the petitioner, respondent No. 10 allegedly acting on behalf of the Management of the St. Ann's Convent Society passed the impugned order dated 15-9-92 and 16-9-92 proposing to initiate the enquiry against the petitioner into certain alleged misconducts and to suspend her pending enquiry. The petitioner challenged the impugned orders and the criminal proceedings in Cr. No. 86/92 before the 6th respondent as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and to quash the same and this was not one of the reliefs which could have been decided in the proceedings before the other Courts. As a whole, the petitioner having sought to enforce the fundamental right, a right to live under Article V read with Article 14 of the Constitution of India in the writ petition, the Court was entitled to exercise the discretion vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and declining to exercise of the same by the Court is contrary to law and unsustainable.
Finding of the Court:
The impugned order of suspension and the initiation of criminal proceedings are vitiated due to such violations of principles of natural justice.
Issues: (1) Whether the proceedings filed by the petitioner before the Civil Courts, the competent authority under the A.P. Education Act and the Government are for similar remedy/remedies sought in the Writ Petition No. 3433/93 and whether such proceedings and the writ petition can be termed as parallel proceedings leading to the same results? (2) Whether the impugned order of suspension of the petitioner was passed by a legally constituted management? (3) Whether it was legal and valid? (4) Whether it was operative and even after the lapse of two months of the order and after the lapse of the extended period of two months by virtue of Section 24(3) of A.P. Education Act, 1982? (5) Whether the petitioner should be deemed to be restored to service after the lapse of 4 months as a whole from the date of the impugned order of suspension by virtue of Section 79(3)(b) proviso of A.P. Education Act, 1982 and whether she can be prevented from actually functioning by mere payment of her emoluments etc., (6) Whether the impugned order of suspension of the petitioner is vitiated on the ground of malice or mala fides alleged by the petitioner? (7) Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner in Cr. No. 86/92 before respondent No. 6 are lodged by the competent authority in law? (8) Even otherwise whether they are vitiated on the ground of malice or mala fides? (9) Whether the Judgment and Order of dismissal of W.P. No. 3433/93 are liable to be set aside?
Ratio Decidendi: The impugned order of suspension and the initiation of criminal proceedings are vitiated due to such violations of principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The impugned order of suspension and the initiation of criminal proceedings are vitiated due to such violations of principles of natural justice.
JUDGMENT :
B.K. SOMASEKHARA, J.
1. This Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent assails the judgment and order of dismissal of Writ Petition No. 3433 of 1993 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court-Hon'ble Sri Justice V. Sivaraman Nair. The appellant who is the writ petitioner filed the writ petition against the respondents under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:
(a) Declaring that the petitioner is entitled to function as Principal and Correspondent of St. Ann's Degree College for Women, Mehdipatnam and Correspondent of St. Ann's Junior Colleges.
(b) Declaring that the respondents 1 to 6 can transact any matter relating to St. Ann's Colleges with no one excepting the petitioner in her capacity as Principal and Correspondent of St. Ann's Degree College for Women, Mehdipatnam and Correspondent of St. Ann's Junior College for girls, Mehdipatnam and that they should ignore all representations, reports or communications sent to them by any of the respondents 7 to 14 claiming to represent St. Ann's Colleges, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad on or after 10-6-1992.
(c) Declaring that the proceedings of 2nd respondent dated 13-11-1992 extending the period of suspension as arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and as violative of the statutory provisions in Section 79 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act.
(d) Declaring that the notices dated 1-7-1992 and 10-8-1992 which are now brought into existence by respondent 1 to 14 and all the proceedings pursuant to that notice as illegal, unenforceable and untenable.
(e) Declaring that the functioning of respondent No. 9 as Principal and Correspondent of St. Ann's Colleges as arbitrary, illegal and as unsustainable and also declare that respondent Nos. 1 to 6 should ignore all her actions, letters and communications sent to them as Principal and Correspondent.
(f) Declaring that the letters addressed by respondent No. 7 after the judgment in W.A. No. 612/92 directing the petitioner to join at Generalate pursuant to her transfer order and the consequential action taken by her by publications as arbitrary, illegal and unjust.
(g) Declaring that the assumption of powers by the respondent Nos. 7 to 14 in St. Ann's Colleges after the transfer order as arbitrary, illegal unjust and consequently direct through enquiry into all their activities and about the entire conduct and functioning of respondents 7 to 14 claiming to be on behalf of St. Ann's Colleges.
(h) Declaring the conduct of respondents 7 to 14 in making frequent press publications about the petitioner violating her fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 221 of the Constitution of India and holding a parallel discussions and publications thereof on issues pending in Court or decided by the Court as illegal and as interfering with the due process of law and consequently initiate appropriate proceedings against them.
(i) Declaring Cr. No. 86/92 on the file of the C.C.S. along with connected proceedings on the file of the 6th respondent as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and pass any other appropriate orders deemed in the interests of justice.
(j) Declaring that the order dated 29-1-93 in I.A. No. 2971 of 1992 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad as without jurisdiction and as inconsistent with the earlier order dated 6-11-1992 in I.A. No. 2968 of 1992 in O.P. No. 1075 of 1992 passed by him and as violative of the orders of the High Court in C.R.P. No. 37/93 and consequently set aside the same.
2. The learned single Judge after hearing all the parties through their learned Advocates and on the material placed before the Court held that:
“…… In view of the fact that there is an efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and she having availed that remedy, there is no justification for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court…….”
3. In regard to reliefs 1 to 8 and 10 and in regard to relief No. 9, it was further held that:
“
