ANWARUL-ULOOM COLLEGE Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three writ appeals are inter -related. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment.

(2.) THE appellant in all the three writ appeals is a Private Aided Educational Institution. It initiated disciplinary proceedings against various employees. Two such are Mr. K.M. Wasif Ali Khan, Lecturer in Economics (for short the 1st respondent), who is since died and is represented by L.Rs., and Mohd. Abdul Jabbar, Office Superintendent (for short the 2nd respondent). Show cause notices alleging acts of misconduct were issued and not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the respondents, the appellant appointed one Mr.Anandam, Chartered Accountant, as an Enquiry Officer. The respondents did not participate in the enquiry and for the most part of it, they were submitting one representation or the other. The Enquiry Officer submitted separate reports, dated 26.10.1984, holding that the charges framed against the respondents, are proved. The Management of the Institution accepted the reports through resolution, dated 11.11.1984. Thereafter orders of dismissal, dated 03.01.1995, were issued to the respondents and some other employees.

(3.) THE appellant filed W.P.Nos.2973 of 1993 and 2851 of 1997 respectively, challenging the said G.Os. The 2nd respondent on the other hand, filed W.P.No.28162 of 1996 for enforcement of the G.O. While W.P.No.2973 of 1993 was allowed through judgment, dated 20.01.2004, W.P.Nos.28162 of 1996 and 2851 of 1997 were dismissed through a common judgment, dated 09.01.2004. Hence, these writ appeals. Sri B.Nalin Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the principal ground on which the Government allowed the appeals, was that the appointment of a Chartered Accountant as an Enquiry Officer is contrary to the A.P. Private Educational Institutions Employees (Disciplinary, Control) Rules, 1989 (for short the Rules) and that the view taken by the Government is contrary to the judgment of this Court in Vivek Vardhini Education Society, Hyderabad v. State of Andhra Pradesh . He submits that the Appellate Authority i.e. the Government, did not advert to any other contention, and in that view of the matter, the impugned G.Os., cannot be sustained in law. Sri P. Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that not only the appointment of the Enquiry Officer is contrary to the Rules, but also the procedure adopted in the enquiry, is totally untenable. He submits that on its part, the Management did not frame any charges at all, and straight away, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. He submits that the Enquiry Officer made a semblance of framing of charges and even while issuing notice, had formed an opinion as to the acts of alleged misconduct. He submits that the learned Single Judge, who has dealt with the respective writ petitions, has analysed the facts with reference to the decided cases and granted the relief and that the said orders do not warrant interference.