Telangana High Court
Board Of Governors vs G Balasubramanyam on 21 April, 2025
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT APPEAL No.884 OF 2024
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)
This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order, dated
04.07.2024, passed in W.P.No.11973 of 2023 by a learned Single
Judge of this Court.
2. Heard Sri T. Mahender Rao, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the appellants and Dr. K. Lakshmi Narasimha,
learned counsel for respondent No.1.
3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants had
contended that respondent No.1 was initially appointed as Junior
Assistant in the then Regional Engineering College, Warangal, on
12.05.1993. Later, he was promoted as Assistant Selection
Grade-I. While so, the Regional Engineering College, Warangal,
was taken over by the Central Government by way of an
enactment i.e. The National Institute of Technology, Science
Education and Research Act, 2007 (for short, 'the Act, 2007'),
with effect from 15.08.2007. As per Section 24 of the Act, 2007,
the appointing authority for teaching faculty is the Board of
2 AKS,J & LNA,J
Governors and in respect of non-teaching staff, it is the Director
of respective National Institute of Technology.
4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants had
further contended that respondent No.1 had indulged in certain
irregularities like insubordination and making allegations against
the officials of the appellants that they are accepting bribes from
the contractors. As the appointing authority for the post of
Assistant Selection Grade-I is the Director, as per Section 24(b) of
the Act, appellant No.2-Director, National Institute of Technology,
Warangal, has initiated disciplinary proceedings against
respondent No.1 by issuing a Charge Memo on 24.06.2020. In
all, six Articles of Charges were framed against respondent No.1.
Respondent No.1 has submitted his explanation to the said
Charge Memo, but the disciplinary authority was not satisfied with
the said explanation and ordered for regular departmental
enquiry. A detailed enquiry was conducted and the Inquiry
Officer submitted Inquiry Report, dated 12.08.2022, holding that
two charges were proved. Based upon the Inquiry Officer's
report, the disciplinary authority i.e. appellant No.2, has imposed
the punishment of compulsory retirement on respondent No.1
vide proceedings, dated 13.10.2022. Aggrieved by the same,
3 AKS,J & LNA,J
respondent No.1 has preferred an appeal to appellant No.1-Board
of Governors, National Institute of Technology, Warangal, and
appellant No.1 was pleased to dismiss the appeal preferred by
respondent No.1 vide proceedings, dated 17.04.2023. Aggrieved
by the proceedings, dated 13.10.2022 and 17.04.2023,
respondent No.1 has approached this Court by filing the subject
W.P.No.11973 of 2023 and the learned Single Judge of this Court
vide impugned order, dated 04.07.2024, was pleased to set aside
the order of punishment and directed the appellants to reinstate
respondent No.1 into service with all consequential benefits,
without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the
appellants.
5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants had
further contended that the learned Single Judge has interfered
with the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed by
appellant No.2 on the ground that appellant No.2-Director is not
the competent authority. The learned Single Judge has agreed
with the contention of the appellants that, in the instant case, the
appointing authority is the Director. But, the learned Single
Judge has come to a conclusion that the appointing authority, in
normal circumstances, is the disciplinary authority, but in respect
4 AKS,J & LNA,J
of the appellant-institute, it is governed by the Act, 2007, which is
a special Act, and as per Statue No.17 (17) of the amended First
Statute of the National Institutes of Technology, the disciplinary
powers for Director of the Institute shall be decided by the Board
of Governors of the respective National Institute of Technology
from time to time. Admittedly, in the instant case, the learned
Single Judge opined that the Board of Governors never gave any
sanction to the Director to act as a disciplinary authority and in
view of the same, the Director is not the disciplinary authority,
and on that ground, the learned Single Judge has set aside the
punishment of compulsory retirement and directed the appellants
to reinstate respondent No.1 into service will all consequential
benefits.
6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants had
further contended that if the learned Single Judge is of the
opinion that the Director is not the disciplinary authority, then the
learned Single Judge ought to have remanded the matter to the
appellants to initiate disciplinary action by the appropriate
authority. Learned Standing Counsel further contended that a
notification was issued by the Ministry of Human Resource
Development, in exercise of power conferred under Section 26 of
5 AKS,J & LNA,J
the Act, 2007, and as per the said notification, the appellants are
following the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short, 'CCS (CCA) Rules') and as per
Rule 12 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, the appointing authority is the
disciplinary authority. Admittedly, in the instant case, the
Director is the appointing authority for the post of Assistant
Selection Grade-I. Therefore, the learned Single Judge erred in
coming to a conclusion that the Director is not the disciplinary
authority and in set aside the punishment of compulsory
retirement.
7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants had
further contended that respondent No.1 has neither questioned
nor raised any issue with regard to the initiation of disciplinary
proceedings by appellant No.2-Director. He has not challenged
the jurisdiction of the Director while participating in the regular
enquiry. Only after dismissal of the appeal by the Board of
Governors, respondent No.1 has raised the issue that the Director
is not the disciplinary authority. Therefore, appropriate orders be
passed in the Writ Appeal by setting aside the impugned order,
dated 04.07.2024, and allow the Writ Appeal.
6 AKS,J & LNA,J
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 had
contended that Section 24 of the Act, 2007, makes it abundantly
clear that all appointments of the staff of every institute, except
that of the Director, shall be made in accordance with the
procedure laid down in the Statute by the Board of Governors, if
the appointment is made on the academic staff in the post of
Lecturer or above or if the appointment is made on the non-
academic staff in any cadre where the maximum pay-scale
exceeds Rs.10,500/-, and in respect of any other case, the
appointments shall be made by the Director.
9. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 had further
contended that, admittedly, when the appellant-institute was
taken over by the Central Government by enactment of the Act,
2007, the pay-scale of respondent No.1 was Rs.18,500/- per
month, which would mean that the Board of Governors is the
appointing authority, but not the Director. This fact was rightly
considered by the learned Single Judge and came to a conclusion
that initiation of disciplinary proceedings by the Director is
without jurisdiction. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has
rightly set aside the order of punishment.
7 AKS,J & LNA,J
10. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 had further
contended that appellant No.2-Director had imposed the
punishment of compulsory retirement and he had also decided the
appeal, by sitting as a Chairman of the Board of Governors. On
this ground also, the learned Single Judge has rightly set aside
the order of punishment. The person, who has imposed the
punishment of compulsory retirement, while working as a
Director, has heard the appeal, while he was discharging his
duties as a Chairman of the Board of Governors. Therefore, the
Board of Governors had also not properly appreciated the case of
respondent No.1. The Board of Governors headed by the
Chairman, who was none other than the person who has imposed
the original punishment of compulsory retirement, has
adjudicated the appeal and therefore, no justice would be
rendered to respondent No.1. Hence, the learned Single Judge
has rightly set aside the punishment order and directed the
appellants to reinstate respondent No.1 into service.
11. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 had further
contended that when the appellants have contended that the CCS
(CCA) Rules are applicable to the appellant-institute, then the
appellants should classify the employees working with them i.e.
8 AKS,J & LNA,J
whether they fall under Categories A, B or C. In the instant case,
no such categorization has taken place and the appellants have
not categorized the post of respondent No.1, so as to initiate
disciplinary proceedings as per the CCS (CCA) Rules. Further, a
perusal of Section 24 of the Act, 2007, makes it very clear that all
appointments of faculty and above and all appointments of non-
academic staff, whose pay exceeds Rs.10,500/-, shall be made by
the Board of Governors. Admittedly, as on the date the Regional
Engineering College, Warangal, was taken over by the central
Government by way of enactment of the Act, 2007, the pay of
respondent No.1 was more than Rs.10,500/-, which would mean
that the appointing authority of respondent No.1 is the Board of
Governors and the Board of Governors alone can initiate
disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, looked from any angle, the
learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside the order of
punishment of compulsory retirement. Therefore, there are no
merits in the Writ Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
12. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by
the learned counsel for the parties, is of the considered view that
a perusal of Section 24 of the Act, 2007, makes it abundantly
clear that in respect of appointment of academic staff in the post
9 AKS,J & LNA,J
of Lecturer and above or in respect of appointment of non-
academic staff in any cadre, where the maximum pay-scale
exceeds Rs.10,500/-, the appointing authority is the Board of
Governors. As respondent No.1 was drawing more than
Rs.10,500/- per month as on the date of initiation of disciplinary
proceedings, the Director could not be the appointing authority.
Therefore, initiation of disciplinary proceedings against
respondent No.1 by the Director was not in accordance with the
provisions of the Act, 2007. Therefore, the learned Single Judge
was justified in interfering with the punishment of compulsory
retirement and in setting aside the order of compulsory
retirement, dated 13.10.2022, passed by the Director, as the
Director is not the competent authority to initiate disciplinary
proceedings and to impose the punishment of compulsory
retirement. Further, the learned Single Judge was also justified in
directing the appellants to reinstate respondent No.1 into service
with all consequential benefits. However, the learned Single
Judge ought to have given liberty to the competent authority i.e.
Board of Governors, to initiate disciplinary proceedings against
respondent No.1, as per Section 24 of the Act, 2007. Therefore,
10 AKS,J & LNA,J
it is always open for the Board of Governors to initiate disciplinary
action against respondent No.1, if they choose to do so.
13. With the above observations, the Writ Appeal is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this Writ
Appeal, shall stand closed.
_________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
__________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date: 21.04.2025.
MD
