T. SREENIVASULU REDDY Vs. SRI KRISHNADEVARAYA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that while he was working as Registrar suspended on 12/4/2006. The Executive Council of the respondent University constituted a Committee on 22/4/2006 to enquire into the allegations levelled against the petitioner and further resolved not to recommend the case to ACB. Even before the Executive Council could meet to take a decision on the said report, the then Vice Chancellor referred the issue to the ACB and the respondent University filed a complaint on 23/9/2006 before the ACB and the same was registered as FIR No. 4/ACB-CIU/2006. Based on the report of the said committee, the Executive Council revoked the suspension and repatriated the petitioner to his parent department as Professor of Chemistry and it is stated that as on date there are no proceedings of any kind pending against the petitioner. but for the reasons best known to the petitioner, the respondent University was not sanctioning the annual increments due to the petitioner from the year 2006 i.e., seven increments add upto Five Lakhs approximately which is due from the University. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed WP No. 19017 of 2012 before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and in view of the later development, the petitioner withdrew the above writ petition with a liberty to file a fresh writ petition challenging the resolution dtd. 27/6/2012.

(3.) Counter affidavit came to be filed by the 1st respondent denying all the material allegations made in the petition and contended that based on the recommendations of the ACB the Principal Secretary, department of Higher Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, referred the case to Commissioner of Inquiries (COI). The Government appointed Mr. Lingaraju Panigrahi, Commissioner, COI as the Inquiry officer and directed the university to formally approve his appointment. Basing on the orders of the Vice Chancellor, the Registrar formally approved his appointment as Inquiry Officer. Flowing this, the increments due to the petitioner were temporarily withheld pending inquiry by COI.