Acharya Nagarjuna University Anu vs Dr Balumuri Venkateswarlu
2022 Latest Caselaw 9476 AP

                                 1




      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI
                         &
 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

                     W.A. No. 976 OF 2022

JUDGMENT:(per A.V. Sesha Sai, J)

      Heard Sri Rambabu Koppineedi, learned counsel for the

appellant and Sri Subba Rao Korrapati, learned counsel for the

writ petitioner-first respondent herein.

The 3rd respondent in W.P.No.22822 of 2021 is the

appellant in the present Writ Appeal, preferred under Clause 15

of the Letters Patent.

By way of the order impugned in the present Writ Appeal,

the learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition, with a

direction to the 3rd respondent-appellant herein to allow the writ

petitioner-first respondent herein to attend duties without fail

from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and also

directed the appellant to conduct fresh enquiry if at all in the

event of any involvement of the writ petitioner-first respondent

herein in the criminal activities.

The appellant-University appointed the writ petitioner-

first respondent herein as Lab Inspector to maintain computer

lab and to teach noncore paper "Functional English" in

Department of English. Pursuant to the process of selection

undertaken by Five Men Committee appointed by the appellant-

University herein, the writ petitioner-1st respondent herein has

been continuing as guest faculty. The writ petitioner-first

respondent herein did his Doctorate also in the year 2018. With

a pleading that the appellant-University authorities were not

allowing the writ petitioner-1st respondent herein to discharge

his duties as guest faculty without issuing any proceedings, the

Writ Petition came to be instituted by the writ petitioner-1st

respondent herein. Resisting the Writ Petition, the appellant-

University filed a counter. As mentioned supra, the learned

Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition in the manner as

indicated above.

Sri Rambabu Koppineedi, learned counsel for the

appellant-University contends that the order of the learned

Single Judge is highly erroneous and contrary to law. It is also

the submission of the learned counsel that taking into account

the conduct of the writ petitioner-1st respondent herein, the

impugned action in the Writ Petition came to be resorted to by

the appellant-University. It is further submitted that having

regard to the conduct exhibited by the writ petitioner-1st

respondent herein, he is not entitled to file the Writ Petition by

invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

In this context, it may be appropriate to refer to the

averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ

Petition. At paragraph No.6 of the affidavit filed in support of the

Writ Petition, the writ petitioner-1st respondent herein stated

that despite the existence of work load, with an intention to

appoint another temporary employee in his place, the appellant-

University authorities have resorted to the impugned action.

A perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the appellant-

University in the Writ Petition shows that except denying the

contents of the paragraph No.6 of the writ affidavit, the counter

did not specifically deny the above mentioned averments in the

writ affidavit. There is absolutely no material available on record

to demonstrate that before coming to a conclusion against the

writ petitioner-1st respondent, opportunity of representing his

case was afforded to him. It is a settled and well established

principle of law that any action, which has civil consequences,

should necessarily be preceded by opportunity of hearing to the

person, likely to be affected by such action. In the considered

opinion of this Court, the appellant-University adhered to the

said principle in breach. Obviously taking into consideration the

said aspect, the learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ

Petition, with a direction to the appellant-University to hold

enquiry afresh. In view of these reasons, this Court is not

inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.

For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Appeal is dismissed,

with a direction to the appellant-University to conclude the

enquiry as directed by the learned Single Judge, as

expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (04)

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order

as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,

stand closed.

__________________ A.V. SESHA SAI, J

_________________________________ DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J Date: 08.12.2022 Ks

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

W.A. No.976 OF 2022 (per A.V. Sesha Sai, J)

Date: 08.12.2022

Ks