Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 550 (AP)

M. B. Nataraj v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2020-09-01

M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

body2020
JUDGMENT M.Satyanarayana Murthy, J. - This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following relief:- "to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings vide Roc.No.578/2019/C2 of the 4th respondent dated 11.06.2020 placing the petitioner under suspension, ratified vide Proceedings Roc.No.332338(1034)/2019/A3, dated 16.06.2020 of the 3rd respondent and not passing any order on the appeal filed by the petitioner by the 2nd respondent against the suspension order as wholly illegal, arbitrary, unjust besides violating the principles of natural justice and the petitioner's rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned proceedings with all consequential benefits and pass such other." 2. It is the case of petitioner that he joined as a teacher in the High School in the year 1991. He is working with utmost faith and sincerity in discharging his duties. He was promoted as School Assistant in the year 2009 and again promoted as Head Master, SPMH School, Tadipatri vide proceedings dated 12.02.2019. He has been discharging duties sincerely and twice he received best teacher award also. After assuming charge as Head Master, the petitioner discharged his duties sincerely and tried his level best to run the school with discipline. In order to bring discipline in the staff for the better future of students, he conducted a meeting and requested all the staff to be punctual and disciplined in the school, so, that children can be controlled and maintain discipline. 3. While so, on 07.12.2019 the owner of the Tadipatri Engineering College Sri Ramesh Reddy along with his followers and gunman entered into the school and shifted petitioner's headmaster's room to a small room stating that the existing room is not convenient to the staff to come and sign the register and warned the petitioner not to insist the staff to maintain punctuality and allow them to work in their own way and also proclaimed that this school should be run in accordance with his directives. When the petitioner complained about the same to the Superintendent of Police he advised to give complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Therefore, the petitioner gave complaint about the incident to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tadipatri requesting him to take action against the said Ramesh Reddy and protect the petitioner to discharge his duties. When the petitioner complained about the same to the Superintendent of Police he advised to give complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Therefore, the petitioner gave complaint about the incident to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tadipatri requesting him to take action against the said Ramesh Reddy and protect the petitioner to discharge his duties. The petitioner also intimated about the said incident to the 4th respondent vide letter dated 10.12.2019. The 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 06.01.2020 transferred the petitioner to JCNRMBH School, Tadipatri and one Shri Ram Madhusudhana Raju, Head Master of the School was transferred to the SPMH School, where the petitioner was working as Head Master. 4. Aggrieved by the above order the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent vide appeal dated 04.06.2020 under Rule 25(5) of Andhra Pradesh Municipal Education Subordinate Rules, 2016 rising various grounds particularly the order was in the nature of punishment and the same cannot be fast without there being any enquiry and requested to set aside the same and allow the petitioner to rejoin in his original place of SPMH School, Tadipatri. Till date the appeal was not taken up by the 2nd respondent. 5. It is further contended that the 4th respondent issued show cause notice to the petitioner vide RC.No.578/2019-C2, dated 05.06.2020 calling for explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against the petitioner in view of the noncompliance of order dated 28.05.2020. 6. The petitioner vide application dated 08.06.2020 requested the 2nd respondent to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of show cause notice dated 05.06.2020 issued by the 4th respondent pending appeal. The 4th respondent in spite of intimating that the appeal is pending for consideration against the transfer order before the 2nd respondent vide Roc.No.578/2019/C2 of the 4th respondent dated 11.06.2020, placed the petitioner under suspension from the service and the same was ratified by the 3rd respondent vide Proceedings in Roc.No.332338(1034)/2019/A3, dated 16.06.2020. The action of 3rd and 4th respondents is arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice besides violating the petitioner's rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and requested to set aside the order of suspension. 7. The action of 3rd and 4th respondents is arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice besides violating the petitioner's rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and requested to set aside the order of suspension. 7. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri K.Koutilya while reiterating the contentions urged in the petition fairly conceded that an appeal dated 18.06.2020 is pending before the 2nd respondent against the impugned order i.e., the order of suspension and a stay petition is also filed on 24.06.2020 and it is pending before the 2nd respondent. 8. However, the learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities Sri P.C. Reddy submitted that the petitioner cannot prosecute two parallel proceedings i.e., invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the appeal before the 2nd respondent in terms of Rule 25(5) of Andhra Pradesh Municipal Education Subordinate Rules, 2016 and requested to issue necessary direction to the 2nd respondent to dispose of the appeal pending before the 2nd respondent. 9. Undoubtedly, the petitioner though aggrieved by the order of 4th respondent, he cannot prosecute two parallel proceedings one in the nature of appeal as per Rule 25(5) of Andhra Pradesh Municipal Education Subordinate Rules, 2016 and invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, since it is purely a discretionary in nature. Therefore, prosecution of appeal writ proceedings simultaneously is impermissible. Hence, the 2nd respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal dated 18.06.2020 along with stay petition dated 24.06.2020 within a week from today and in the event of failure to dispose of the appeal by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner is at liberty to approach this Court seeking appropriate relief. 10. With the above direction, Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.