LAWS(APH)-2014-8-112

SRI VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY Vs. O. RAMASUDARSHANA REDDY

Decided On August 11, 2014
Sri Venkateswara University Appellant
V/S
O. Ramasudarshana Reddy Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in W.P. No. 7478 of 2002. Respondent No. 1 herein filed the writ petition challenging the order, dated 11.02.2002, passed by the appellants herein directing his removal from service. A learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition through judgment, dated 20.01.2014.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that respondent No. 1 was appointed as Attender on 03.10.1968 in the appellant -University and was promoted as Lower Division Clerk in the year 1974. On the allegation that he was involved in acts of grave misconduct, such as that he was instrumental in admitting as many as 10 candidates into 24th Convocation, though they did not obtain pass marks and that he committed similar irregularities in relation to 25th, 27th and 30th Convocations, he was placed under suspension through order, dated 04.04.1987. Thereafter, he was removed from service on 12.11.1987. The order of termination was set aside in W.P. No. 5088 of 1988 by a Division Bench of this Court through order, dated 26.10.1999, on the sole ground that it was not preceded by a departmental enquiry. Thereafter, the appellants appointed respondent No. 2 herein, a retired District Judge, as an Enquiry Officer. Respondent No. 2, in turn, conducted enquiry and submitted a report on 03.11.2000 holding that the charges against respondent No. 1 are proved. Taking the same into account, the appellants passed an order, dated 11.02.2002, removing respondent No. 1 from service. The same was challenged in W.P. No. 7478 of 2002.

(3.) THE appellants filed a counter -affidavit opposing the writ petition. They stated that the acts resorted to by respondent No. 1 are very serious in nature and that he was instrumental in conferring degrees upon quite large number of persons, though such candidates have failed in the examinations. According to them, the objection as to appointment of Enquiry Officer was not raised till the writ petition was filed and it cannot be entertained at this stage.