Telangana High Court
M.Jaisree vs Jawaharlal Nehru Technological ... on 18 June, 2024
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No.20801 of 2009
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus, by setting aside the proceedings No.C5/7976/2006 dated 29.07.2006 issued by the 1st respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner and Memo No.PSP/5239/EC.1/2006-2 dated 30.07.2007 issued by the 2nd respondent in continuing the order of the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.
2. Heard Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner; and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1-JNTU.
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, as per the averments in the writ affidavit, is that the petitioner was appointed as Computer Operator in the year 1985 and was regularized in the said post in the year 1986. The 1st respondent issued a Memo dated 26.11.2004 to the petitioner by referring to various complaints alleged against her regarding her alleged misbehavior and as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against her, but no copies of the said complaints were furnished to her and she was transferred from the School of Continuing and Distance Education to the College of Engineering, Kukatpally, vide proceedings dated 27.01.2005 and was relieved with immediate effect, and in fact the 2 transfer order was served on the petitioner on 01.02.2005. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 02.02.2005 seeking certain clarifications about her transfer, and later she also filed WP No.2068 of 2005 challenging the transfer order dated 27.01.2005 and the same was dismissed on 11.02.2005 and a writ appeal was preferred against the same. The petitioner alleges that she was asked to report at Kukatpally through Memo dated 24.02.2005 but the same was not communicated. The respondent University issued a paper notification dated 29.03.2005 stating that the whereabouts and the address of the petitioner are not known and that an Enquiry Committee was constituted on 29.02.2005 and asking the petitioner to be present on 31.03.2005. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 30.03.2005 requesting to furnish all the documents relating to the alleged enquiry on 31.03.2005 but nothing was communicated to her and she was absent for the enquiry. The 1st respondent through proceedings dated 25.05.2005 suspended the petitioner from service based on the resolution passed by Executive Council dated 02.04.2005, and eight charges were communicated to the petitioner through charge memo dated 22.7.2005. The petitioner denied the said charges through representation dated 06.08.2005. A three-men committee was appointed through proceedings dated 06.08.2005, and the enquiry committee through memo dated 02.09.2005 directed the petitioner to appear on 12.09.2005, and the petitioner appeared before 3 the Committee and informed that she did not receive relevant documents and the same aspect was also informed to the Registrar through letter dated 12.09.2005 and no enquiry was conducted on 12.09.2005. Through proceedings dated 19.01.2006, a two-men committee was constituted and through memo dated 10.02.2006 the petitioner was asked by the Registrar to be present before the committee on 20.02.2006. The petitioner again requested for the documents, however, through notice dated 16.03.2006, the petitioner was asked to appear on 03.04.2006, and the petitioner reiterated her request and no enquiry was conducted on 03.04.2006. However, through proceedings dated 09.05.2006 an enquiry report dated 19.04.2006 was furnished to the petitioner directing her to furnish her explanation, and the petitioner submitted her explanation on 29.05.2006. Through proceedings dated 29.07.2006, the petitioner was terminated from service. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Chancellor of respondent University (His Excellency the Governor of AP) on 25.09.2006, and the respondent University submitted its remarks to the Chancellor, and the petitioner made another representation to the Chancellor on 11.04.2007, and based on the representation dated 11.04.2007, the 2nd respondent wrote to respondent University to consider the case of the petitioner but the respondent university through proceedings dated 26.06.2007 stated that no posting can be given and that the university has given a detailed report on the 4 issue and finally the appeal was rejected by 1st respondent on 30.07.2007 and the petitioner made one more representation dated 13.06.2007 to the Chancellor, but there was no response. The petitioner challenges the termination order dated 29.07.2006 and the rejection of appeal dated 30.07.2007.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged complaints of abusive language by the petitioner on the higher officials starting from Registrar to the Vice-chancellor are without basis as no details were furnished. When Memo dated 30.11.2004 was issued to the petitioner seeking explanation about alleged incident on 26.11.2004 the petitioner sought for documents of alleged complaints by vice chancellor and others through representation dated 10.12.2004 but no documents were furnished. Learned counsel submits that the proceedings dated 11.02.2005 and 24.02.2005 directing petitioner to join duty were never communicated to the petitioner, and she was informed nothing about appointment of any enquiry officer, and issued notification in the newspaper to be present before enquiry committee. Learned counsel further submits that the charge memo was issued on 22.07.2005 by framing eight charges and though 12 documents were relied on by the respondent, no document was furnished to the petitioner. It is necessary to note that 19 witnesses were proposed to be examined to speak about the incidents and the petitioner submitted representation dated 5 06.08.2005 denying the charges and that the earlier enquiry committee has already gone into the incident dated 26.11.2004 and hence there was no necessity for framing charges once again and that denial of furnishing documents is violation of principle of natural justice. Learned counsel submits that the three men committee vide memo dated 29.09.2005 directed the petitioner to be present on 12.09.2005 and the petitioner requested for documents of earlier four men committee report relating to incident on 26.11.2004 however they were not furnished and no enquiry was conducted, and therefore it is the contention of the learned counsel that the earlier four men committee and the three men committee have not given fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner in facing the enquiry. Learned counsel submits that a two men committee was constituted on 19.01.2006 which fixed the date of enquiry on 20.03.2006 and the petitioner anticipated that no justice would be done and requested not to conduct one-sided enquiry and the petitioner communicated the same through representation dated 20.02.2006. However, the two men committee issued memo dated 16.03.2006 for conducting enquiry on 03.04.2006 and the petitioner reiterated her stand about fear of one sided enquiry through representation dated 03.04.2006 and did not attend enquiry. Learned counsel submits that in view of non- furnishing of documents by respondent in spite of repeated requests by the petitioner justifies the reluctance of the petitioner to attend the 6 enquiry and therefore the respondent university violated principle of natural justice. Learned counsel submits that the enquiry was sought to be conducted under CCA Rules 1991 but the rules have not been followed by the respondent. Learned counsel submits that the two-men committee submitted its report dated 19.04.2006 and the same was communicated to the petitioner vide memo dated 09.05.2006 and that the report was prejudiced and that there was reference to the earlier two committees which the petitioner did not choose to attend and the two- men committee did not appreciate the fact that the petitioner did not attend the enquiry before earlier two committees. It is further contention of the learned counsel that not a single witness was examined and there was no marking of documents and therefore the enquiry as per CCA rules have not been followed and therefore the report is prejudiced and perverse and without evidence. It is further contended that the petitioner submitted explanation dated 29.05.2006 to the enquiry report to consider the same but the same was not considered and the disciplinary committee accepted the report in a mechanical way based on prejudiced view from the complaint right from vice chancellor, registrar and other officials. It is also contended that the petitioner made an appeal to the Chancellor on 25.09.2006 and the respondent university submitted its remarks and the appeal was rejected by memo dated 30.07.2007 which is non-speaking. Learned counsel submits that the termination order is 7 assailed on various grounds, namely, (a) Vagueness of charges, (b) relevant documents not served/furnished to the petitioner, (c) transfer of the petitioner is punitive and demonstrates biased, (d) giving of paper publication as if the petitioner is absconding demonstrates the biased and vindictive attitude of the vice-chancellor towards the petitioner; (e) not a single witness was examined, though 19 wintesses were sought to be examined as per charge memo; (f) CCA Rules, 1991, were totally violated; (g) The four men committee/three men committee/two men committee were biased, as they gave their reports as if the petitioner was not attending the enquiry, failing to appreciate that the petitioner is not absconding/not attending the enquiry but was only insisting for supply of documents so that she can defend her case effectively; (h) no witnesses were examined by the enquiry and no documents were marked through witnesses and no enquiry as contemplated under CCA Rules was conducted; (i) the disciplinary authority/respondent university did not apply their mind, inasmuch as the termination order dated 29.07.2006 is non-speaking and mechanical without considering any of the grounds raised by the petitioner; (j) the appellate authority/government order dated 30.07.2007 is also non-speaking and without application of mind and was carried away by the remarks of the respondent university/disciplinary authority. It is also contended that Charge No.1 was about non-compliance of transfer order dated 27.01.2005 and the 8 same is totally unsustainable, inasmuch as the petitioner and others have challenged the transfer order as without jurisdiction and the transfer order was punitive and was issued only based on the complaints against the petitioner about her misbehavior on 26.11.2004. Learned counsel also contends that charge No.2-refusal to receive relieving order is also unsustainable as the question of not taking relieving order would not arise inasmuch as the petitioner was relieved unilaterally on 29.01.2005. It is also contended that charge No.3-petitioner allegedly locking the chambers of SCDE on 01.02.2005 is also unsustainable as the same is sought to be proved based on the alleged note of the Director and the alleged statement of watchmen thought they were not examined by the enquiry officer and that too without copies of alleged note and/statements of Director and unnamed watchman. Learned counsel contends insofar as charge Nos.4 to 7 are concerned - with regard to alleged misbehavior with Vice-chancellor, Registrar, Assistant Registrar, and with Establishment Section on 26.11.2004, the same are also not proved and unsustainable as not a single witness was examined. Learned counsel contends that charge No.8 - unauthorized absence is also unsustainable as the validity of transfer order was challenged in the writ petition and though writ petition was dismissed, the petitioner was waiting for result of writ appeal and in the meanwhile the petitioner was suspended in May 2005 and therefore there is no unauthorized absence. 9 That the enquiry committee went beyond its scope and referred to an alleged incident between petitioner and one I.V.Ramana in the past and held that the petitioner is a quarrelsome person. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner could gather the documents under the Right to Information Act, but necessary documents were never supplied to the petitioner. Learned counsel further contends that after the dismissal of W.P.No.2068 of 2005 the petitioner was communicated to join duty vide memo dated 11.02.2005 and 24.02.2005 but the petitioner did not join as she sought clarification about jurisdiction of Registrar to issue transfer order and same was not clarified by respondent university. It is also contended that the very continuation of vice-chancellor beyond September 2004 is without jurisdiction and contrary to JNTU Act. It is also contended that charge No.2 is about relieving order of the petitioner, and the petitioner was unilaterally relieved on transfer and therefore the petitioner refused to take relieving order and hence holding the charge against the petitioner by the enquiry committee is illegal. It is also contended on charge No.3 about locking of chamber and rooms of SCDE on 01.02.2005 by the petitioner the enquiry committee held the charge against the petitioner based on the statement of watchman and that no watchman was examined before the enquiry committee. It is contended with regard to charge Nos.4 to 7 regarding alleged misbehavior of the petitioner with vice chancellor, registrar, and assistant registrar in the 10 Establishment Section on 26.11.2004 that the petitioner was making request about implementing and no such incident happened on that day and the alleged complaints have never been communicated to the petitioner and no witnesses were examined. It is contended on Charge No.8 regarding unauthorised absence of petitioner from 29.01.2005 that the petitioner was seeking clarification as to the validity of transfer and was waiting for the outcome of the writ appeal. It is also contended that the vice chancellor is not authorized to function beyond September 2004 and the petitioner was waiting for clarification on these issues and therefore there is no willful absence on the part of petitioner. It is therefore contended that the termination order passed against the petitioner, dated 29.07.2006 and the memo dated 30.07.2007 issued by 2nd respondent in continuing the order of 1st respondent is illegal and unconstitutional and liable to be set aside.
5. A counter affidavit is filed by the Registrar of the respondent- University stating that the petitioner was appointed as Computer Operator vide proceedings dated 29.06.1985 on a consolidated pay of Rs.400/- per month and subsequently vide proceedings dated 28.02.1986 on a consolidated pay of Rs.800/- per month and she was absorbed in regular pay scale attached to the post with effect from 18.02.1987. It is also stated that complaints were received against the petitioner from other staff members and she was served with Memo dated 11 30.11.2004 seeking explanation for her misbehavior and that she has not furnished explanation and a four member enquiry committee was constituted to enquire into the misbehavior. In the interregnum the petitioner was transferred on administrative grounds on 27.01.2005 along with some other staff and the transfer was approved by the vice chancellor who is the competent authority and the petitioner is deemed to have been relieved by the Director, SCDE on the afternoon of 29.01.2005 with instructions to the Principal, JNTU College of Engineering, Hyderabad, but the petitioner instead of complying with transfer order approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing writ petition and the same was dismissed on 11.02.2005, and after dismissal of writ petition, she has not joined duty at JNTU College of Engineering, nor she applied for any kind of leave since 30.01.2005 i.e., the day after she was relieved by SCDE, JNTU, and she is deemed to be under unauthorized absence from duty. A Memo was served on the petitioner on 07.02.2005 directing her to report for duty at JNTU College of Engineering, Hyderabad. As she was not responding, a paper notification was issued on 30.03.2005 and the same was reiterated in the report dated 31.03.2005. In spite of serving memos on the petitioner to the residential address in university records, the petitioner did not join duty and the same was placed as an item in LXIX Meeting of Executive Council held on 02.04.2005 bringing to the notice of Executive Council about the 12 misconduct and misbehavior of the petitioner and for taking further course of action. The Executive Council passed resolution to keep the petitioner under suspension with effect from 25.05.2005 pending enquiry into her unauthorized absence. Subsequently a 3 member committee was constituted to enquire into her unauthorized absence. The petitioner was served with Charge memo dated 22.07.2005 and she was directed to submit her written statement of defense to the Articles of charges within 10 days and the petitioner did not submit any explanation and though there was a direction to appear before enquiry committee on 12.09.2005, she has neither appeared before enquiry committee to explain the reason for non-compliance of her transfer order nor her unauthorized absence from duty and her misbehavior with other staff. She has not availed the opportunities given to her and instead she submitted a letter to 3 member committee that she has sought some clarifications from university and in the absence of receiving clarifications she was not prepared to face enquiry committee, and based on that letter dated 12.09.2005, the enquiry committee in its report submitted that the petitioner is not willing to face the enquiry. Thereafter, the university constituted a two men committee to enquire into above mentioned matters and directed the petitioner to present herself before committee with all relevant documents on 20.02.2006 but the petitioner failed to appear before the committee and she was given another opportunity to 13 appear before the enquiry committee on 03.04.2006 but the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity and the committee was constrained to conduct enquiry on the charges framed by petitioner in absentia and a report was submitted on 19.04.2006. Based on the report of the committee, the University has called for explanation from the petitioner before 30.05.2006 while communicating the reports of the enquiry committee, failing which it was informed to the petitioner that necessary action will be taken against her on the information available on record failing which it will be construed that the petitioner has no explanation to offer and necessary disciplinary action will be taken against her; and as a result the disciplinary authority after careful examination of the enquiry report and the available records, agreed with the findings and conclusions of the enquiry committee and terminated the petitioner from services of University with effect from 29.07.2006. The petitioner was given ample opportunity to submit her explanation to various charges against her but she has deliberately not bothered to submit explanation and to abide by University orders to report to place she was transferred. It is pertinent to note that both the SCDE and JNTU College of Engineering are located within same campus and there was absolutely no reason for the petitioner not to honour the transfer orders. The petitioner aggrieved by the orders of University in terminating her services, approached the Chancellor of University by way of appeal and the appeal 14 was rejected on the ground that there were no merits and that there is no violation of principles of natural justice vide Government Memo dated 30.07.2007 and therefore there is no merit in the writ petition.
6. Learned Standing Counsel while drawing attention to various facts mentioned in the counter affidavit would submit that various complaints were received against the petitioner from other staff with regard to the misbehavior with staff and the petitioner was served a Memo on 30.11.2004 seeking explanation for her misbehavior and to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against her, and she failed to submit her explanation, and vide proceedings dated 27.01.2005, the petitioner and some other staff were transferred on administrative grounds from SCDE Unit to JNTU College of Engineering. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner and others filed WP No.2068 of 2005 for quashing of transfer proceedings on the ground that Registrar is not competent authority and the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the transfer was as per directions of Vice Chancellor, and even after dismissal of writ petition the petitioner did not join duty and was on unauthorized absence since 30.01.2005. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the respondent No.1 issued Memos dated 11.02.2005 and 24.02.2005 directing the petitioner to report the JNTU College of Engineering but the petitioner failed to report and did not respond to the memos and thereby a paper notification was issued 15 directing the petitioner to report before enquiry committee on 31.03.2005 and the petitioner did not appear before the committee. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the matter was placed as an item in LXIX meeting of Executive Council held on 02.04.2005 bringing to the notice of the council about misconduct and misbehavior of the petitioner and the Executive Council passed a resolution to keep the petitioner under suspension with effect from 25.05.2005 pending enquiry into her unauthorized absence. Learned Government submits that subsequently a 3 member committee was constituted and the petitioner was served with Charge Memo dated 22.07.2005 and she was directed to submit her written statement of defense to the Articles of charges within 10 days from the date of receipt of Memo but she has not bothered to submit any explanation and though there was a direction to appear before the enquiry committee to submit her explanation and that though there was direction to appear before the committee on 12.09.2005, the petitioner has not appeared before the committee, and instead she submitted a letter dated 12.9.2005 seeking some clarifications and the enquiry committee in its report submitted that the petitioner is not willing to face enquiry. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that the University has constituted a two men committee to enquire into the matter and directed the petitioner to present herself on 20.02.2006 but the petitioner failed to appear before the committee and she was given another opportunity to 16 appear before the enquiry committee on 03.04.2006; and as a result the enquiry committee conducted enquiry on the charges framed against the petitioner in absentia and a report was submitted on 19.04.2006. Learned Standing Counsel submits that based on the report of the committee the University called for explanation from the petitioner on 30.05.2006 while communicating the reports of enquiry committee failing which necessary action will be taken as per the information available on record and construing that the petitioner has no explanation to offer and the disciplinary authority after careful examination of the enquiry report, and available records, terminated the services of the petitioner with effect from 29.07.2006, and the petitioner appealed before the Chancellor of the University and the appeal was rejected as devoid of merit. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that the petitioner was given ample opportunities to submit her explanation and appear before the three enquiry committees and the petitioner has not bothered to appear before the committees and the disciplinary authority has examined the case and terminated the services of the petitioner and therefore there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the respondent University.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on State of Punjab vs. V.K Khanna 1; Union of India v. Ram Lakhan Sharma 2; Dev 1 (2001) 2 SCC 330 2 (2018)7 SCC 670 17 Singh v. Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. 3; and also on the judgment in Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girija Shankar Pant 4 and on High Court of Andhra Pradesh v. Nirmala K.R. Dayavathi 5.
8. In V.K. Khanna(1 supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph 33 held as under:
33. While it is true that justifiability of the charges at this stage of initiating a disciplinary proceeding cannot possibly b delved into by any court pending inquiry but it is equally well settled that in the event there is an element of malice or malafide, motive involved in the matter of issue of a charge-sheet or the concerned authority is so biased that the inquiry would be a mere farcical show and the conclusions are well known then and in that event law courts are otherwise justified in interfering at the earliest stage so as to avoid the harassment and humiliation of a public official. It is not a question of shielding any misdeed that the Court would be anxious, it is the due process of law which should permeate in the society and in the event of there being any affectation of such process of law that law courts ought to rise up to the occasion and the High Court in the contextual facts has delved into the issue on that score. On the basis of the findings no exception can be taken and that has been the precise reason as to why this Court dealt with the issue is so great a detail so as to examine the judicial propriety at this stage of the proceedings."3
(2003) 8 SCC 9 4 (2001) 1 SCC 182 5 (2015) 15 SCC 681 18
9. In Ram Lakhan Sharma (2 supra), the case relates to furnishing of relevant documents/complaints/statements. The Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph 22 concluded as under:
22. Rule 27 sub-rule (c) of the CRPF rules, 1955, provides for the procedure for conducting a departmental enquiry which is as follows:
Rule 27(c): The procedure for conducting a departmental enquiry shall be as follows:
(1) The substance of the accusation shall be reduced to the form of a written charge which should be as precise as possible. The charge shall be read out to the accused and a copy of it given to him at least 48 hrs. before the commencement of the enquiry. (2) At the commencement of the enquiry the accused shall be asked to enter a plea of Guilty or Not Guilty after which evidence necessary to establish the charge shall be let in. The evidence shall be material to the charge and may either be oral or documentary, if oral.
(3) It shall be direct (4) It shall be recorded by the Officer conducting, the enquiry himself in the presence of the accused.
(5) The accused shall be allowed to cross examine the witnesses (6) When documents are relied upon in support of the charge, they shall be put in evidence as exhibits and the accused shall, before he is called upon to make his defence be allowedto inspect such exhibits.
10. Learned counsel draws attention to paragraphs 36, 37, and 38 of Ram Lakhan Sharma (2 supra), which reads as under:
36. Thus, the question as to whether Inquiry Officer who is supposed to act independently in an inquiry has acted as 19 prosecutor or not is a question of fact which has to be decided on the facts and proceedings of particular case. In the present case we have notice that the High Court had summoned the entire inquiry proceedings and after perusing the proceedings the High Court came to the conclusion that Inquiry Officer himself led the examination in chief of the prosecution witness by putting questions. The High Court further held that the Inquiry Officer acted himself as prosecutor and Judge in the said disciplinary enqiry. The above conclusion of the High Court has already been noticed from paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment of the High Court giving rise to Civil Appeal No.2608 of 2012.
37. The High Court having come to the conclusion that Inquiry Officer has acted as prosecutor also, the capacity of independent adjudicator was lost which adversely affecting his independent role of adjudicator. In the circumstances, the principle of bias shall come into play and the High Court was right in setting aside the dismissal orders by giving liberty to the appellants to proceed with inquiry afresh. We make it clear that our observations as made above are in the facts of the present cases.
38. In result, all the appeals are dismissed subject to the liberty as granted by the High Court that it shall be open for the appellants to proceed with the inquiry afresh from the stage as directed by the High Court and it shall be open for the appellant to decide on arrear pay and allowances of the respondents.
11. Learned Standing Counsel would rely on Gujarat Electricity Board v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani 6, which relates to discharging the respondent therein from services for unauthorized absence. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 4 as under:
6
(1989) 2 SCC 602 20 "..... Transfer from one place to other is necessary in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Whenever, a public servant is transferred he must comply with the order but if there be any genuine difficulty in proceeding on transfer it is open to him to make representation to the competent authority for stay, modification or cancellation of the transfer order. If the order of transfer is not stayed, modified or cancelled the concerned public servant must carry out the order of transfer. In the absence of any stay of the transfer order a public servnt has no justification to avoid or evade the transfer order merely on the ground of having made a representation, or on the ground of his difficulty in moving from one place to the other. If he fails to proceed on transfer in compliance with transfer order, he would expose himself to disciplinary action under the relevant rules. The respondent lost his service as he refused to comply with the order of his transfer from one place to other.
12. In paragraph 9 of Gujarat Electricity Board (4 supra), it is held as under:
"9. In view of the above discussion, we therefore hold that the respondent's failure to join his duties at Ukai resulted in unauthorized absence and his failure to join his duties in spite of repeated reminders and letters issued to him constituted sufficient valid ground for taking action under Regulation 113. We further hold that before issuing the order of discharge the respondent was not only warned but he was also afforded an opportunity to explain as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. The respondent acted in an irresponsible manner in not complying with the order of transfer which led to his discharge from service in accordance with the Service Regulation 113. The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench both erred in law in setting aside the order of discharge. We 21 accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside the order of the Single Judge as well as Division Bench and dismiss the respondent's petition. There would be no order as to costs."
13. Having considered the respective submissions, and perusing the material on record, and also the judgments relied on by both the learned counsel, it is pertinent to note that, in the instant case, the petitioner was served a Memo on 30.11.2004 seeking explanation for her misbehavior and to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against her, and she failed to submit her explanation. Vide proceedings dated 27.01.2005, the petitioner and some other staff were transferred on administrative grounds from SCDE Unit to JNTU College of Engineering; and challenging the same WP No.2068 of 2005 was filed and the same ended in dismissal; and the petitioner did not join duty and was on unauthorized absence since 30.01.2005 as she did not admittedly apply for any kind of leave before the competent authority. Further, the petitioner was issued Memos dated 11.02.2005 and 24.02.2005 directing to report at her transferred place i.e., the JNTU College of Engineering but the petitioner failed to report and did not respond to the memos sent on the residential address mentioned in university records, and in such a situation a paper notification was issued directing her to appear before enquiry committee on 31.03.2005, but the petitioner did not appear before the committee. Further, the matter was placed before the 22 Executive Council meeting held on 02.04.2005 and the Executive Council passed a resolution to keep the petitioner under suspension with effect from 25.05.2005 pending enquiry into her unauthorized absence. It may be noted that three enquiry committees were constituted to enquire into the misbehavior and misconduct and unauthorized absence of the petitioner. More particularly, there was a direction to the petitioner to appear before the enquiry committee to submit her explanation before the committee on 12.09.2005, the petitioner has not appeared before the committee, and instead she submitted a letter dated 12.09.2005 seeking some clarifications on the jurisdiction of the authority to transfer her. It is to be noted that the transfer from SCDE to College of Engineering is within the campus and that too on administrative grounds and few others were also transferred along with the petitioner and the transfer has the approval of the vice chancellor. It is further to be noted that in view of reluctance of the petitioner to cooperate with the enquiry and appear before the enquiry committee and based on the letter dated 12.09.2005, the enquiry committee in its report submitted that the petitioner is not willing to face enquiry. It is to be further noted that a two member committee was constituted and the petitioner was directed to appear before the committee on 20.02.2006 but the petitioner failed to appear before the committee; and another opportunity was given to the petitioner to appear before the enquiry committee on 03.04.2006 but the 23 petitioner did not appear before the committee to cooperate with the enquiry proceedings. And the enquiry committee conducted the enquiry in absentia with respect to the charges framed against the petitioner and a report was submitted on 19.04.2006. Further, based on the report of the committee the University called for explanation from the petitioner again on 30.05.2006 duly communicating the reports of enquiry committee and also mentioning that necessary action would be taken if the petitioner does not appear basing on the information available on record and also stating that it will be construed that the petitioner has no explanation to offer. It is also to be noted that the disciplinary authority has examined the enquiry reports and available records, and terminated the services of the petitioner with effect from 29.07.2006, and further the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Chancellor of the University was rejected as devoid of merit. Further, she has filed the present writ petition after a gap of nearly 3½ years without any explanation for the delay. It is to be noted that the transfer from SCDE to College of Engineering was on administrative grounds along with other staff members within campus. Further, after the dismissal of WP No.2068 of 2005 when the respondent university has directed the petitioner to join duty, she has neither joined her duties nor was on authorized leave which tantamount to unauthorized absence from duty. Further, she has not appeared before the enquiry committees to cooperate with the 24 enquiry and not responded to the memos issued to her calling for explanation on the complaints of misbehavior lodged by various staff of the university. It is to be noted that memos were addressed to the petitioner calling for her explanation and directing her to appear before enquiry committees, and these are undoubtedly opportunities given to the petitioner and therefore the petitioner cannot canvass that there is violation of principle of natural justice or violation of procedure under CCA Rules when she has voluntarily not appeared before enquiry committees and not cooperated with the enquiry proceedings against the charges of misbehavior, misconduct, unauthorized absence. There is nothing placed on record that prevented her from joining duty, or that prevented her from attending and cooperating with the enquiry proceedings with regard to various charges against her, more so, when the petitioner was given charge memo and she was well aware of various charges against her. Further, it is pertinent to note that according to Charge Memo No.CS/7876/2004-05 dated 22.07.2005 it is stated that if the petitioner fails to comply with the directions issued in the said memo, necessary action as per Rule 20 of the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, will be taken. The judgments sought to be relied on by the petitioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as the petitioner was already provided with ample opportunities by way of memos and directions to appear 25 before enquiry committees to furnish her explanation for the charges of misconduct against her and the petitioner has deliberately evaded those opportunities. Admittedly, the petitioner is not on authorized leave since 30.01.2005 and therefore she is deemed to be under unauthorized absence from duty since 30.01.2005 i.e., the day after she was relieved by SCDE and she has not joined her duties since 30.01.2005. The grounds sought to be taken by the petitioner that she is waiting for certain clarifications on the jurisdiction and competence of higher officials to order her transfer, that she was waiting for the result of a writ appeal said to have been filed against dismissal of WP No.2068 of 2005, and that she is waiting for the result of another appeal filed before the Chancellor of the University, and that the enquiry committees constituted to enquire into the charges against her could be one-sided, biased or not independent, are all frivolous grounds and the same cannot be countenanced. It is to be noted that admittedly there are no interim orders in favour of the petitioner either in the writ appeal said to have been filed against the dismissal of WP No.2068 of 2005 either staying the judgment of the writ petition; and admittedly there are no orders in the purported another appeal said to have been filed before the Chancellor of the University consequent to the dismissal of the earlier appeal by the Chancellor of the University. Succinctly put, there are no orders in favour of the petitioner staying the transfer order or that would permit her to 26 refrain from joining her duties in the respondent University consequent to the dismissal of the WP No.2068 of 2005. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner was on unauthorized absence since 31.01.2005 and though she was directed to join her duties after dismissal of WP No.2068 of 2005, she did not choose to join her duty, and she is on unauthorized absence since 31.01.2005. Further, she was given memos directing her to submit her explanation for various charges against her, and she was also directed to appear before the enquiry committees, however, she has chosen not to participate in the enquiry proceedings on one ground or the other. The petitioner was made known about the enquiry proceedings through memos addressed to her residential address available in the records of the University and even through paper publication, and therefore she cannot plead violation of principles of natural justice or violation of procedure under CCA Rules. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the action taken by the respondent university in terminating the services of the petitioner, and therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
14. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_____________________________ Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka 18th June, 2024 ksm