MULLAH AHMED Vs. ACHARYA N G RANGA AGRICULTURALUNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 27-6-2003, in compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service with a cut of 10% in his basic pension, and the consequential memo dated 27-6-2003 issued by the 1st respondent directing him to handover complete charge of his post, is impugned in this writ petition, as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction.

(2.) Facts, to the extent necessary, are that the petitioner was initially appointed in the respondent-University as a Supervisor in August 1968, which post was later re- designated as an Assistant Engineer. He was promoted as a Junior Engineer in 1972 which post was subsequently re-designated as Assistant Executive Engineer. He was subsequently promoted as an Executive Engineer in March 1998. The petitioner was issued memodated 26-11 -2002 informing him that he would be retiring from service, on attaining the age of superannuation, on 30-6-2003. Contending that he was entitled to continue in service till he attained the age of 60years, the petitionerfiled W.P. No. 11348 of 2003 and this Court passed interim orders directing the respondents to continue him in service till he attained the age of 60 years.

(3.) Earlier, Memo dated 11-6-2003 was issued calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why punishment of compulsory retirement with 10% cut in pension should not be imposed on him for certain lapses. The petitioner submitted his reply thereto on 16-6-2003. Thereafter, the impugned proceedings dated 27-6-2003 was passed imposing on the petitioner, the punishment of compulsory retirement with 10% cut in his pension. This order is challenged on several grounds including thattheVice-Chancellordid not have the powerto inflict a majorpunishment as he was not the appointing authority and it is the Board of Management which alone is competent to impose a major penalty, that neithera regular Vice-Chancellor northe Board of Management was in office, that the in- charge Vice-Chancellor, who imposed the punishment, could neither be deemed to be a Vice-Chancellor under the Act nor was he conferred disciplinary powers under the statute, that punishment of compulsory retirement is not envisaged under the A.P. Agricultural University (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1965, that the impugned proceedings were passed without application of mind and without considering the objections raised by the petitioner thereto, that two punishments of compulsory retirement and 10% cut in pension could not have been simultaneously imposed, that imposition of such punishment is not only illegal but also constitutes double punishment, that a copy of the report of the three man committee and the enquiry report, relied on in support of the charges, were not furnished to the petitioner and that the entire action initiated by the respondent was opposed to principles of natural justice and fair play.