Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
S Sobhan Kumar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 7 August, 2024
APHC010118202020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 7240/2020
Between:
S Sobhan Kumar ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION (AP)
The Court made the following Order:
This Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
seeking the following relief:
"....to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly
one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the orderof
suspension dated 05.11.2018, the rejection of the request of
the petitioner for reinstatement by order dated 05.08.2019,
both by the 3rd respondent and the order of the 2nd respondent
dated 21.08.2019 abdicating his statutory duty as illegal,
arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh
Education Act, 1982, and unconstitutional and consequently
direct the 3rd respondent to forthwith reinstate the petitioner
and pay salaries and all consequential benefits...."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has studied M.A.(History) in
S.V.University, Tirupati and was awarded master's degree in 1990. While so,
N.B.K.R.Science & Arts College, Vidyanagar, SPSR Nellore district, Andhra
Pradesh, issued open notification for recruitment to the posts of Lecturer and
on facing an interview committee and the petitioner was selected as
Lecturer(History) and was appointed on 11.08.1992. While things stood thus,
the petitioner was falsely implicated in a criminal case bearing Crime No.350
of 2018 of Nawabpet Police Station (II Town Police Station), Nellore. The
petitioner was granted bail by the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Nellore on 06.12.2018. On 05.11.2018, the 3rd respondent passed an
order keeping the petitioner under suspension. As such, the petitioner made a
representation to the 3rd respondent on 09.05.2019, 14.09.2019 and
21.12.2019 pleading to reinstate the petitioner into service. But the same went
in vain. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. Heard Mr.Bodduluri Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education, for the
respondents.
4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the
contents urged in the writ petition, submits that the petitioner on facing an
interview committee, was selected as Lecturer (History) and was appointed on
11.08.1992 and joined in duty on 17.08.1992. The petitioner is a regularly
appointed Lecturer. The post is aided by the Government of Andhra Pradesh.
The said college is 4th respondent in this writ petition. The college managing
committee was superseded more than 10 years ago and since then, the
Government appointed Special Officer i.e., the 3rd respondent, who is
managing the affairs of the college. The said college is governed by the
Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 and the 2nd respondent is the
Competent Authority in so far as the 4th respondent college is concerned. He
further submits that the allegations in the complaint are absolutely false. On
05.11.2018, the 3rd respondent passed an order keeping the petitioner under
suspension under Section 79 of Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982. He
further submits that as per Section 79 of Andhra Pradesh Education Act,
1982, an enquiry against a teacher shall be completed within a period of two
months from the date of communication of the charges framed. The proviso
clearly states that unless an enquiry is contemplated into gross misconduct,
no employee shall be suspended. Even if the employee is suspended, he
cannot be continued under suspension for more than two months and if the
enquiry cannot be concluded, he should be reinstated. He further submits that
the petitioner made representations to the 3rd respondent on 09.05.2019,
14.09.2019 and 21.12.2019 pleading to reinstate him into service. But the
same went in vain. After the 1st representation, the 4th respondent
communicated the order of the 3rd respondent refusing the request of the
petitioner.
5. To support his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon
a judgment of this Court in T.Inna Reddy vs. District Educational Officer,
Hyderabad and another1, wherein this Court has allowed the revision petition
and the relevant portion reads as follows:
"Section 79 of the A.P.Education Act, 1982, hereinafter
referred to as "the Act", makes the provision that suspension shall
remain in force for not more than two months and that if an enquiry is
not started and completed within that period, he would be deemed to
have been restored as the employee but that the competent authority
may for reasons recorded in writing extend the period of suspension for
a period not exceeding two months. The power can be exercised by the
competent authority if in his opinion the enquiry cannot be completed
within two months for reasons directly attributable to such employee."
Therefore, learned counsel relying upon the above decision of this
Court, prays to allow the writ petition.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader vehemently opposed to allow
the writ petition and prays to dismiss the same.
6. On considering the submissions of both the learned counsels and upon
perusing the material on record, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ
petition, with a direction to the 4th respondent to consider the case of the
petitioner, in the light of the above said judgment in 1996 (3) ALD 691 (D.B) of
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, dated 26.06.1996, in accordance with law,
1996 (3) ALD 691 (D.B)
within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
7. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall
be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________________
Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J
BMS
