SATYANANDAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have had the advantage of reading the valued opinion recorded by my learned brother Choudary, J. Being, however, unable to persuade myself to concur with that opinion, I proceed to record my own.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition have been stated by my learned brother and I deem it sufficient to rtcapitulate the barest minimum necessary to make this judgment self-contained.

(3.) The petitoner is a teacher iff the service of the Government of Andhra Pradesh and was posted in Zone I of the State at Vumaravilli in Srikakulam District. He was transferred from that place and posted to Kurnool, a town in Zone VI of the State. That order was assailed by him before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in R. P. No.957/1981 (hereinafter referred to as Administrative Tribunal). Pending the disposal of that matter, at his request, the Administrative Tribunal suspended the order of transfer. As a consequence, the Government did not implement its order of transfer. Later, on 4-8-1981, the Government suspended the petitioner from service pending enquiry into same charges. The legality and propriety of this order also was questioned by him in R P No.1414/81 and the Tribunal by its order dated 3-9-1981 suspended the said order pending disposal of R P No. 1414 of 1981. The Government, however, issued G O Ms No. 1140 education dated 28-9-1981 suspending the said interim order of the Tribunal dated 3-9-1981. That order is now challenged before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India iater-alia on the ground that the order of the Government is vitiated by mala fides and was the result of political pressure brought upon it by two other lecturers of the College.