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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
(2001) 2 SCC 330
(2018)7 SCC 670
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."
(2003) 8 SCC 9
(2001) 1 SCC 182
(2015) 15 SCC 681
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
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:
(1989) 2 SCC 602
"..... 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
