Private educational institutions must obtain permission from the competent authority before taking action against their employees, as per Section 79(1) of the A.P. Education Act, 1982.

ORDER:

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following relief:-

“……to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus declaring the actions of the 4th respondent-college in dismissing the petitioner from service vide Rc.No.42/A/En/2022-2023, dated 01.09.2022 and not reinstating the petitioner into service in compliance of the directions issued by the 3rd respondent Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education vide Rc.No.267/A2/2021 dated 24.09.2022 and Rc.No.267/A2/2021 dated 24.09.2022 as void, illegal, arbitrary, violative of Section 79 of the A.P. Education Act, 1982 and Rules made there under and also in violation of Article, 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4th respondent-College to reinstate the petitioner and pass such other order or orders ……”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents.

3. The Writ Petition is filed declaring the action of the respondent No.4/College in dismissing the petitioner from service vide proceedings dated 01.09.2022 and not reinstating the petitioner into service in compliance of the directions issued by the respondent No.3/Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education vide proceedings dated 20.09.2022 and 24.09.2022 is void and illegal.

4. The petitioner is appointed as Lecturer (Telugu) against an aided post and is working as such to the satisfaction of his superiors without any remarks. The petitioner has put in 22 years service as today. While so, a memo dated 07.10.2020 was issued by the respondent No.4/College alleging that the petitioner has made objectionable statements defaming the respondent No.4/College on social media. On such, the petitioner has given his explanation on 10.10.2020 stating that the statements made by the petitioner are nothing but irregularities and illegalities committed by the college. On 19.11.2020 the respondent No.4 has issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why the disciplinary action shall not be initiated for violating Rule 24(2)(d) and Rule 25 (1) of the A.P. Private Education Institution Employees Conduct Rules, 1985. Reply to the said show cause notice was submitted by the petitioner on 23.11.2020 and subsequently, the respondent No.4/College has passed an order dated 26.11.2020, suspended the petitioner without considering the explanation submitted by him.

5. Subsequently, a charge memo dated 15.01.2021 was served on the petitioner, leveling 12 charges for violating various Rules and guidelines under the A.P. Education Act, 1982 and the petitioner has made representation dated 16.01.2021 to the respondent No.3, stating that a private person cannot be appointed as an Enquiry Officer as per Rules in vogue and he cannot conduct such enquiry and subsequently the petitioner was reinstated into the service vide proceedings dated 27.01.2021. Thereafter, enquiry officer submitted report on 20.03.2021, concluding that the petitioner is liable for charges leveled against him.

6. While the things stood well, respondent No.4/College has requested respondent No.3 vide letter dated 27.04.2021 seeking permission for termination of the petitioner for the alleged misconduct and the respondent No.3 vide letter dated 21.03.2022 sought clarification from the respondent No.2 wherein directed the respondent No.3 to instruct the respondent No.4/college to conduct the fresh enquiry by appointing another enquiry officer of higher rank to that of Lecturer in cadre and the same instructions were communicated to the respondent No.4 by the respondent No.3 vide letter dated 31.03.2023.

7. Basing on the above said instructions of the respondent Nos.2 and 3, respondent No.4/College has issued another charge sheet cum show cause notice dated 02.05.2022 and the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 21.05.2022 to the respondent No.3 stated that he is unable to attend the e