MOHD ISMAIL KHAN TEACHER MANUAL TRAINING INSTRUCTOR ST THOMAS SPG BOYS HIGH SCHOOL SECUNDERABAD Vs. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writ petitions are inter-connected and the petitioner is the same person. Therefore all these writ petitions are clubbed and are heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) These writ petitions need not detain the Court for a long. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties the Court finds certain fatal errors apparent on the face of the proceedings culminating in the dismissal order passed against the petitioner which is matter of the writ petition the subject No. 11886/91.

(3.) A few facts which are required to be stated for the disposal of the writ petitions are: The second respondent is an aided recognised educational institution. At the time of hearing it was stated at the bar that the aid was extended by the Governmental authorities to the second respondent educational institution in the year 1959. The petitioner joined the services of the second respondent educational institution on 9-8-1956 as manual Training Instructor for short 'M.T.I.'. When the petitioner had put in almost 30 years of service in the second respondent educational institution, on 19-6-1987 the third respondent District Educational Officer, Hyderabad by proceedings dated 19-6-1987 directed the second respondent Institution to place the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry and directing the latter to send a compliance report in that regard. Thereafterwards the third respondent District Educational Officer, himself chose to issue charge-sheet dated 16-6-1989 framing as many as 11 charges against the petitioner and calling upon the petitioner to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against the petitioner. The said charge memo dated 16-6-1989 was called in question by the petitioner in this Court in W.P.No. 9581/89 mainly on the ground that the District Educational Officer has no competency or authority in law to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Thereafterwards the second respondent- management by its proceedings dated 18-12-1989 communicated the same charges to the petitioner and calling upon the petitioner to submit his reply within ten days from the date of receipt of the proceedings. A reading of the preamble of the communication dated 18-12-1989 containing the same charges which were earlier framed by the District Educational Officer clearly indicates that the management acted like a post box without any application of mind. The petitioner is an employee of the second respondent institution and there is a relationship of master and servant. The learned High Court Government Pleader who appeared on behalf of the Governmental authorities sought to persuade the Court to accept the plea that under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982, which Act hereinafter shortly referred to as the Act', the District Educational Officer has necessary power and competence to initiate disciplinary proceedings against an employee of private aided educational institution but she is not in a position to point out any provisions of the Act or the provisions of the Rules framed thereunder to support this plea. The Act regulates the managerial powers of the educational institutions which come under the purview of the Act. The passing of the Act does not severe the relationship of the master and servant which existed on the date of the enactment between the private managements and their employees. The relationship of employer and employee which existed on the date of the enactment of the Act still continues. Therefore the only competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings on the alleged misconduct committed by its employee is the Management of the concerned private educational institution but not the Governmental authorities. There is no relationship of master and servant between the Government and the employees working in the private aided educational institutions. Therefore the action of the District Educational Officer in issuing the charge memo on 16-6-1989 is wholly without jurisdiction and competence. On the short ground Writ Petition No. 9581 of 1989 is entitled to be allowed and it is accordingly allowed. The impugned charge memo is quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari. No costs.