B A JOHN Vs. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KANCHIKACHARLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari and to quash the order of the 1st. respondent the Block Development Officer Kanchikacherla. Nandigama Taluk. Krishna District, in Roc. No. 2003/E/6l d/ 19-l-l962 and of the second respondent, the President, Panchayat Samithi, Kanchikacherla, in Rc. No. 970E/62 d/4-5- 1962, The relevant facts may be stated thus: The Petitioner, B. A. John, is a teacher in the Panchayat Samithi. Elementary School. Paritla, Nandigama Taluk, within the jurisdiction of the panchayat Samithi of kanchikacherla. He is also the Secretary of Kanchi- kacherla Samithi Elementary Teachers- Association (hereinafter called Association). The Extension Officer of the Samithi, M. Veerasatyam with the assistance of his clerk, it appears, was giving trouble to the Elementary School teachers in that Block. The Association made several representations to the President of the Samithi and enumerated grievance orally as well as in writing and resolutions were also passed by the Association and communicated them to the Block Development Officer, President of Samithi and other officers of the Education Department but they were not headed. There upon a pamphlet dtd. 7/5/1961 was issued by the Association and that was issued in the name and on behalf of the Association. Underneath the name of the Association, designation and names of the Office bearers were also mentioned, the first amongst them, being the Petitioner, B. A, John, the Secretary. It also borns the names of the President, Vice President and members of the Association. In that pamphlet, the Association requested the Government and the management to take appropriate action against Officers, and appealed to the teachers, public and the management to make the free elementary education system a success. In one paragraph a number of irregularities or improprieties committed by the Extension Officer, were mentioned viz., making inspections after school hours, not noting the dates in the inspection memos, not granting maternity, 1eave to lady teacher grating joining permission, interfering with the affairs which do not concern the management, troubling the teachers advising the villagers not to send their children to schools and making too many unwarranted inspections of the Schools which he did not like etc. and that he was assisted in this behalf by his clerk and that consequently the teachers were subject to inconvenience and trouble bringing discredit to the management which is very regrettable also stated that it is difficult to have free elementary education system implemented by such officers. For publishing this pamphlet, a common charge memo was issued to the petitioner and two others. B. George. President of the Association, and Y. Aanandam, a member of the Executive Committee, on the ground that the pamphlet was in contravention of rules 11 and 18 of the rules regulating the conduct of servants of Local Bodies. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 14/8/1961, and explained that the pamphlet was issued by the Association, only after a number of representations were made, which went unbeeded, and that they never contravened any of the rules, and it was not their inaction to discredit the management. An enquiry was held into the charges and the lst respondent by his order d/19/1/1962 suspended the petitioner from service for six months. An appeal to the second respondent against that order was dismissed by his order d/ 4/5/1962. Hence, this Writ Petition was filed attacking the order as being without jurisdiction and opposed to the rules aforesaid. The Writ Petition was opposed by both the respondents by separate counters but substantially on the same grounds: It is urged that the allegations in the leaflet are baseless and that rules 11 and 18 clearly apply to the case. When copies of the leaflet were sent to M. L. As., M. L. C. s., Director of Public Induction, Regional Director of Public Instruction, D. E. O. and Secretory, Zilla Perishad, the motive was to beting outside influence and pressure which is forbidden under rule 18. Rule II was said to have been violated because it was issued by the petitioner in his own name. It was also urged that the petitioner has a remedy by way of revision under Sec. 72 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Samithis and Zilla Parishads Act to the Government and that the issue of a Writ will only be academic and anfractuous. Sri Seetharama Raju, the learned Counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions and stated that though the petitions had undergone the punishment of suspension, the petition may not be dismissed;

(2.) the decision of this petition is neither infructuos nor academic, as the grant of Writ would entitle the petitioner to other reliefs though they may not be granted in this petition; and

(3.) Neither rule 11 nor rule 18 has been violated. I shall consider the validity of these contentions. It is laid down in U. P. State v. Mohd. Noor 1