Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 349 (AP)

K. Subba Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2021-06-18

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, NINALA JAYASURYA

body2021
ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. K.B. Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Syed Khader Mastan, learned Government Pleader appearing for all the respondents. 2. This writ appeal is presented by the writ petitioner against an order dated 07.05.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 17624 of 2020. 3. By an order dated 14.11.2018, the Vice-Chancellor of Adikavi Nannaya University had absorbed and appointed the appellant, who was serving as Principal (Ad-hoc), University College of Education, as regular Principal of the University College of Education. Subsequently, by an order dated 19.11.2018, the order dated 14.11.2018 was cancelled subject to approval of Executive Council. The said order was put to challenge in W.P. No. 2210 of 2019. On the basis of consensus expressed by the learned counsel for the parties on instructions, the said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 29.04.2019. Operative portion of the said order reads as under: “1. Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned proceedings No. ANUR/SH/2018/6, dated 19.11.2018, passed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. However, it is open for the respondents herein to issue notice to the petitioner herein and take appropriate action after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein. There shall be no order as to costs.” 4. Subsequently, a memorandum dated 21.11.2019 was issued asking the appellant to submit his explanation within two weeks from the date of receipt of the memorandum. The relevant portion reads as under: “Hence, Dr. K. Subba Rao, Teacher (Ad-hoc), University College of Education, Adikavi Nannaya University is directed to submit his explanation within two weeks from the date of receipt of this memorandum, that, why proceedings No. ANUR/S-II/2018/5, dated 14-11-2018 of the Vice-Chancellor and Proceedings No. ANUR/S1I/2019/7, dated 27-05-2019 of the Vice-Chancellor absorbing him in regular Principal post sanctioned vide G.O.Ms. No. 35, Higher Education (HE) Department, dated 13.11.2018, cannot be cancelled and he be reverted as Principal (Ad-hoc) on consolidated pay and to recover excess salary paid during the above said period.” 5. It appears that the appellant did not respond to the said memorandum and he asked for certain documents and in that circumstance, the Registrar of Adikavi Nannaya University issued a notice dated 17.08.2020, giving 7 days' time to make any further request for any further information that may be required to facilitate submission of reply to the notice. It appears that the appellant did not respond to the said memorandum and he asked for certain documents and in that circumstance, the Registrar of Adikavi Nannaya University issued a notice dated 17.08.2020, giving 7 days' time to make any further request for any further information that may be required to facilitate submission of reply to the notice. By the said notice, it was also directed that the appellant has to not only submit reply to the memorandum but to also appear before the Committee along with his reply and supporting documents on 30.09.2020 in the executive hall of Adikavi Nannaya University, failing which, it was indicated that the University would decide further course of action on this matter. 6. The appellant challenged the memorandum dated 21.11.2019 and the notice dated 17.08.2020 as well as a letter dated 08.07.2020 asking him to submit a reply before 15.07.2020 by filing a writ petition, which was numbered as W.P. No. 17624 of 2020. By an order passed on 07.05.2021, the writ petition was disposed of with the following directions: “Having given consent to the order that was passed in W.P. No. 2210 of 2019, wherein it was observed that it is open to the respondents to issue notice to the petitioner and to take appropriate action, the petitioner now cannot contend that no notice can be issued to the petitioner. As liberty is given to the respondents to issue notice to the petitioner and to take appropriate action after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein in W.P. No. 2210 of 2019, the proceedings dated 21.11.2019 cannot be found fault with. However, as the letter addressed to the petitioner by the respondent University on 17.08.2020 directs the petitioner to attend before the committee for enquiry along with reply to the memo dated 21.11.2019, the said letter dated 17.08.2020 is set aside and the respondents are directed to furnish the documents, if any, sought by the petitioner and which are agreed to the supplied by the University vide letter dated 17.08.2020 as expeditiously as possible and after supply of the said documents to the petitioner, two weeks time has to be granted to the petitioner to submit his explanation and after receipt of the said explanation, if the respondents are not satisfied with the same, the petitioner may be directed to attend before the enquiry committee. As the letter dated 08.07.2020 is only a reply to the letter of the petitioner dated 05.12.2019, it need not be set aside. It is made clear that as directed in the previous Writ Petition No. 2210 of 2019, opportunity of hearing has to be given to the petitioner herein before passing any order and the same has to be communicated to him. It is also made clear that this order is being passed without going into the merits of the contentions raised by all the parties to the litigation. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.” 7. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 8. Mr. Syed Khader Mastan has submitted that whatever documents were sought for till the date of filing of the appeal had been supplied to the appellant. 9. A perusal of the order goes to show that the letter dated 17.08.2020 requiring the appellant to attend before the Committee with reply to the memo dated 21.11.2019, was set aside. The learned single Judge also observed that the letter dated 08.07.2020 being only reply to the letter of the appellant dated 05.12.2019, it was not required to be set aside. 10. Grievance expressed by the appellant is that the memorandum dated 21.11.2019 is misconceived and without any authority of law and, accordingly, it is sought to be contended that the learned single Judge committed error of law in not interfering with the said memorandum. 11. We are unable to concur with him and we are inclined to agree with the learned single Judge that the appellant having agreed in the earlier round of litigation that it will be open for the University to issue notice, the appellant cannot now contend that no notice could have been issued to him. If there is any infirmity in the said notice, the appellant is at liberty to point out the same in the reply to be filed by him. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in this appeal. 12. At this juncture, Mr. If there is any infirmity in the said notice, the appellant is at liberty to point out the same in the reply to be filed by him. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in this appeal. 12. At this juncture, Mr. K.B. Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the appellant is on medical leave from 15.05.2021 as his family members have been afflicted with Corona virus and there are bereavements in the family also and, therefore, a month's time may be granted to the appellant to furnish his reply. 13. Mr. Syed Khader Mastan has no objection for grant of a month's time to the appellant to submit his reply. 14. In view of the above submissions, we observe that the appellant may file his reply to the memo dated 21.11.2019 within a period of one month from today. 15. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed with the above observations. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.