CH SURYANARAYANA RAJU Vs. GOVT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this batch of writ petitions are the employees of the third respondent-polytechnic college. All of them have been placed under suspension, through separate orders dated 27.10.2005, alleging certain acts of misconduct. Their grievance is that though the period of two months had elapsed by 26.12.2005, they have not been reinstated into service under sub-section (3) of Section 79 of the A.P. Education Act, 1982 (for short "the Act"). They place reliance upon a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in B. Sanjeeva Rao v. Regional Joint Director of School Education, Guntur, 2002 (1) ALD 322.

(2.) Sri M Panduranga Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the purport of sub-section (3) of Section 79 of the Act is very clear, to the effect that once the period of two months elapses, the employers are under obligation to reinstate the suspended employees into service. He pleads that since the enquiry is not concluded within two months and the third respondent did not obtain any orders of extension of the period of suspension from the second respondent, the occasion to invoke the proviso to Section 79(3) of the Act does not exist.

(3.) Learned Government Pleader for Technical Education submits that the second respondent received a letter dated 26.12.2005 from the third respondent stating that the latter intended to conclude the enquiry before 28.12.2005 and appointed an enquiry officer, stipulating the date for appearance of the petitioners as 24.12.2005, but, the Counsel representing them, pressed for adjournment. She contends that the request of the third respondent for extension of time is under consideration by the second respondent.