T SHIVALINGAM Vs. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER WARANGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When this writ petition and W.P.M.Ps. came up yesterday for hearing, the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner was absent. The matters are, therefore, posted for dismissal to this day. Even to-day, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is absent. Heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned Counsel for the 4th respondent.

(2.) The petitioner, who is the Secretary-cum-Correspondent of Abhyudaya Vidya Nilayam High School, Warangal, has filed the above writ petition questioning the notice dated 21-7-1995 issued by the Deputy Educational Officer, Warangal, (2nd respondent) to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to appear before the Enquiry Officer along with the records mentioned in the notice on 31-7-1995 failing which further action will be taken against him. The said notice was issued to the petitioner pursuant to a representation made by the 4th respondent who is the President of the school to the District Educational Officer, Warangal (first respondent complaining about several irregularities allegedly committed by the petitioner in the management of the school. Acting on the said representation, the District Educational Officer, Warangal, directed the Deputy Educational Officer, Warangal and the Deputy Inspector of Schools (East), Warangal to conduct a preliminary enquiry. Pursuant to the said directions of the District Educational Officer, they have visited the school to enquire about the allegations made by the President. As the petitioner was not available, the attender of the institution was sent to the house of the petitioner on 20-7-1995 to request the petitioner to attend the enquiry. As the petitioner did not make himself available up to 8 P.M. on 20-7-1995, the Deputy Educational Officer, Warangal, issued the impugned notice dated 21-7-1995 calling upon the petitioner to appear before the Enquiry Officer along with the records on 31-7-1995. The petitioner questions the validity of this notice on the ground that according to Section 92 of the A.P.Education Act, 1982, the Deputy Educational Officer is not competent to hold any enquiry.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent i.e., the District Educational Officer, Warangal, it is stated that the Deputy Educational Officer issued the impugned notice on the directions issued by the District Educational Officer only and the Deputy Educational Officer is competent to make a preliminary enquiry in view of Rule 17 of the Grant-in-aid Code which empowers the District Educational Officer to look into the accounts of every school receiving aid from the Government and to cause an audit to be carried out.