P KANTHI KUMARI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed by 4th respondent college on 15-7-1986 in a leave arrangement against an aided post which was occupied by one Sister Annette John. The petitioner was appointed from 15-7-1986 to 20-3-1987 and she was paid salary in accordance with the Government rules. She states that, the 4th respondent thereafter sent proposal to respondents 2 and 3 for ratifying the appointment of the petitioner. The respondents 2 and 3 initially ratified the appointment for a period of one year. Then, again proposals were sent but they were not being ratified and at the same time Sister Annette John in whose leave arrangement the petitioner had been appointed had resigned. She submits that she gave several reminders but no orders were issued by the Government. She states that, she held the post and the fourth respondent addressed a letter dated 15-7-1992 to the second respondent for issuance of orders of regularisation of services of the petitioner so that audit objections are overcome. No reply was given and the petitioner was asked by 4th respondent to make enquiry about the same in the office of the respondents. The petitioner says that, she informed her husband, her husband made some enquiries and the petitioner came to know that the second respondent had already issued proceedings dated 27-8-1992 approving her appointment with effect from 21/03/1987 and the same had been sent to the College directly. But said proceedings had not been received in the College, concerned clerk was contacted and one Sri Vittal of the Intermediate Department was approached, he gave a xerox copy to the petitioner who filed it before the 4th respondent on 11/03/1993. The 4th respondent referred this copy to the second respondent. The second respondent issued proceedings on 23/03/1993 seeking certain clarification and sought the original copy of the order dated 27-8-1992. The second respondent in the meantime issued a telegram on 1/04/1993 withholding the pay of the petitioner. On enquiry it was found that as a matter of fact no order had been issued on 27-8-1992 regularising the services of the petitioner and the xerox copy produced by the petitioner was a fake copy. The salary was stopped. The petitioner submits that, she then sought personal interview with the Commissioner of Collegiate Education and explained her position. Her husband also, according to the petitioner, filed a statement and explained in detail how a xerox copy came into his possession. The then Commissioner, according' to the petitioner, ordered Joint Director to release the salary of the petitioner but no action was taken till the then Commissioner was transferred. Salary was not being paid from April, 1993 to the petitioner. In the meantime a Police case was registered under Crime No.51 of 1993 and above mentioned Sri Vittal was booked in the case and the petitioner was cited as a witness in the matter. On 18-2-1994 a Memo was issued to the petitioner which is reproduced below: "It is stated by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Andhra Pradesh in his proceedings in Rc.No.1118/PCI-1/93-2 dated 24-1-1994 that you have submitted proceedings of the Director of Collegiate Education in Rc.No.2825/PCI-2/91 dated 27-8-1992 relating to the approval of your . post beyond 21-3-1987 which proved to be fake proceedings and that you deceived the Government. You are required to explain in writing why drastic disciplinary action should not be taken against you for deceiving the Government by submitting fake proceedings of Director of Collegiate Education in Rc.No.2825/PCI-2/91, dated 27-8-1992 on or before 26-2-1994 failing which the undersigned would be compelled to take drastic disciplinary action against you."A reply was filed by the petitioner on 27/02/1994. The reply has not been annexed with the writ petition, but it has been stated in the Writ petition itself that the petitioner denied that she had deceived anybody, she further stated that the person responsible for issuance of such a fake document had already been prosecuted. She however admitted having presented the fake document. She did not contest that the document was not fake, she also did not deny that she had presented the document for her benefit. After reply was considered the respondent passed another order which is reproduced below: "I have carefully considered your explanation dated 26-2-1994 and it is highly evasive and unsatisfactory. We have decided to terminate your service after giving you one more opportunity to defend yourself. You are required to give your explanation in writing why you should not be dismissed from your service within seven days from the date of receipt of this letter. If you fail to give an explanation in writing within the stipulated time, you may represent orally within that period. If you fail to do so, I would pass orders dismissing you from the service. Sd/- Correspondent , Maria Stella College, Vijayawada."The petitioner states that she filed a detailed reply on 7-4-1994. That reply also is not produced in the Court. In the meantime, she filed writ Petition in this Court being WP No.12682 of 1994. The Writ petition was disposed of on the ground of availability of an alternate remedy. The Court found that an appeal was provided for, therefore the petitioner filed an appeal before the Regional Joint Director of Higher Education, Rajahmundry who considered the appeal and passed order on 17-5-1996 directing the respondents to hold an enquiry in terms of Section 79(1) of the A.P. Education Act. He set aside the order which had in the meantime been passed on 25-6-1994. The fourth respondent aggrieved of the order passed in appeal filed another appeal before the 1st respondent. The first respondent reversed the findings of the Joint Director and upheld the order of termination. This has been challenged in this Court.

(2.) The impugned order has been stayed by this Court and a Vacate stay application, has been filed. The learned Counsel for respondents submits that since there is no post sanctioned and the College being an aided college gets the salary as against the post, it is difficult for them to pay the petitioner in view of the fact that there is no sanction from the Government.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties in detail and with their consent this writ petition is disposed of finally.