Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 146 (AP)

Achanala Ramadevi v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2025-01-24

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2025
ORDER : The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “….. to issue any writ, order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent authorities to set aside the impugned Suspension Order Rc.No.1Spl/B2/KGBV Allegations/SS/2021, dated 16.09.2021 by suspending the Petitioner as Principal KGBV Junior College, Parigi, Ananthapur District, as highly illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and order the respondent authorities to reinstate the services of the Petitioner as Principal, KGBV Junior College, Parigi, Ananthapur District, with continuity of the service of the petitioner with all attending benefits…..” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Special Officer in Kanekal Kasturbha Gandhi Balikala Vidyalaya(KGBV), Ananthapur district on contract basis for the period of one year vide proceedings Rc.No.545/KGBV/ RVM(SSA)/SOs/2013, dated 09.12.2013 issued by the State Project Director, KGBV Society, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, when the state was in unified condition. After the bifurcation, the Rajiv Vidya Mission (SSA) continued the service of the petitioner. At present, the petitioner was working as Principal of Parigi KGBV Junior College, Ananthapur district, since August, 2017. There are about 20 students from 6 th to 10 th standard and 80 students in the college. Thus, the students studying the Parigi KGBV performed their best in the respective final examinations in the previous years due to the efforts of the petitioner. Due to political influence, some people pressurized the petitioner to appoint their people in the college on so many occasions, but the petitioner did not yield to the pressure. Hence, the political people put troubles to the petitioner in the administration of the college by one way or other by regularly interfering in the affairs of the college. On the influence of political people, ACB Officials raided the Parigi KGBV Junior College on 24.02.2021 and certain allegations were made against the petitioner regarding maintenance of records, quality of the provisions not being uploaded in the Stock Register, shortage of stocks, quality was not up to the standards on some materials. Basing on the said radio message, the 5 th respondent issued Show-Cause Notice vide Rc.No.124/B2/KGBV/SCNs/2021, dated 25.02.2021 to the petitioner instructing to submit explanation within three days. Basing on the said radio message, the 5 th respondent issued Show-Cause Notice vide Rc.No.124/B2/KGBV/SCNs/2021, dated 25.02.2021 to the petitioner instructing to submit explanation within three days. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 27.02.2021 to the alleged irregularities which were mentioned in Radio Message dated 24.02.2021 and Show-Cause Notice dated 25.02.2021. Without considering the same, the respondent authorities suspended the petitioner from service of Principal, KGBV Junior College, Parigi vide proceedings Rc.No.1 Spl./B2/KGBV Allegations/SS/2021, dated 16.09.2021 after a lapse of five months from the date of issuance of show-cause notice. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The respondents 1, 2, 3 and 5 filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition and stated that the petitioner has never submitted any representation to the higher authorities about interference of outsiders/political people in college administration. Basing on the radio message, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to submit detailed explanation within three days from the date of receipt of notice. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted her explanation stating that maintenance of registers was the primary duty of the accountant but the special officer has to supervise the overall management of the KGBV and she has shown deliberateness in maintaining and supervision of the registers regarding KGBV. It is further stated that regarding the quality of the grocery and essential commodities, it is one of the responsibility of the petitioner to check the quality of the grocery and essential commodities and while receiving any defected material, she has all the right to return them and inform the Higher Authorities, but she has not reported to higher authorities on the quality of the products. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner failed in maintaining administration of college in a proper way and as a Special officer, it is the responsibility of the petitioner to monitor and supervise the staff in proper way, which includes maintenance of Toilets and Bathrooms, Dormitories. But the Special Officer has not brought to the notice of the Higher Authorities regarding the difficulty in maintaining the bathrooms and toilets with the two sweepers, due to increase of students strength. As the explanation of the petitioner was found not satisfactory, the respondents issued suspension order. 4. But the Special Officer has not brought to the notice of the Higher Authorities regarding the difficulty in maintaining the bathrooms and toilets with the two sweepers, due to increase of students strength. As the explanation of the petitioner was found not satisfactory, the respondents issued suspension order. 4. The respondents 4 and 6 filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition and stated that, a surprise check was conducted on KGBV, Parigi Village and Mandal, Anthapuram district from 24.02.2021 at 13:45 hours to 25.02.2021 at 03:15 hours by the DSP, ACB of Ananthapuramu Range, Ananthapuramu along with staff in the presence of the mediators. During the surprise check, it was noticed that some irregularities in the functioning of the KGBV Hostel like maintenance of records, Stock Register not updated, shortage of stocks, quality was not up to the standards on some materials, the bathrooms and toilets were in unhygienic condition, purchasing the stationery exceeding of amount of Rs.1,000/- without following the procedure, appointing of under qualified faculty by violating the norms, etc.. The connected records regarding the irregularities were also seized for the purpose of further actions. Later a Radio Message dated 24.02.2021 was flashed to all the concerned authorities regarding Surprise Check. Basing on the same, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted her explanation. Later the petitioner was suspended from service of Principal on unsatisfactory grounds vide Proceedings Rc.No.1 Spl/B2/KGBV Allegations/SS/2021, dated 16.09.2021. 5. Heard Mr.N.Aswartha Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education, for respondent No.1; Ms.R.Sudha Rani, learned Standing Counsel for Samagra Siksha, for respondent Nos.3 and 5 as well as Mr.S.M.Subhani, learned Standing Counsel for ACB, for respondent Nos.4 and 6. 6. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, it is the bounden duty on the part of the ACB Officials to give prior notice for search and seizure of any material in the premise of KGBV Junior college, Parigi. In the entire State of Andhra Pradesh, no such raid was conducted in the KGBV schools and colleges. The ACB Officials have no such authority to check the KGBV Junior College. They ought to have given prior notice while conducting search and prior permission should be obtained from the District Collector. In the entire State of Andhra Pradesh, no such raid was conducted in the KGBV schools and colleges. The ACB Officials have no such authority to check the KGBV Junior College. They ought to have given prior notice while conducting search and prior permission should be obtained from the District Collector. He further submits that the petitioner’s only duty is to monitor the entire process of the KGBV college in the administrative capacity within her knowledge. The rest of the things have to be overseen by the respective staff, who are specifically allotted for the purpose of maintaining records, accounts and the essential commodities and provisions will be supplied to the KGBV Junior College, Parigi by the contractor, who has to ensure the quality of the goods while supplying to the KGBV College. He further submits that the petitioner worked with her best abilities and gained reputation in the locality and the results were also up to the mark. Due to political interference and outside extraneous considerations, the ACB officials raided the KGBV college premise without having any authority or without giving any prior notice. He further submits that, without considering the explanation of the petitioner to the said show cause notice, the respondent authorities have suspended the petitioner from service of Principal, KGBV Junior College, Parigi vide proceedings Rc.No.1 Spl./B2/KGBV Allegations/SS/2021, dated 16.09.2021 after a lapse of five months from the date of issuance of show-cause notice. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 7. Per Contra, learned Standing Counsel for ACB while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, submits that, as per Memo No.2170/SC,D/83-5 G.A. (SC.D) Department, dated 21.07.1984, the Anti- Corruption Bureau should conduct surprise check on their own initiative in cooperation with the officers of the concerned departments and departmental officers have been instructed by the government to extend cooperation to the Bureau in this regard. Further, surprise check was conducted in the presence of independent mediators, who are three government employees and one of them was a food inspector. The very purpose of Surprise Check will not be fulfilled if prior intimation is given to the concerned as there is every chance that the concerned will manipulate the records and registers to cover up the irregularities/malpractices being done by them. The very purpose of Surprise Check will not be fulfilled if prior intimation is given to the concerned as there is every chance that the concerned will manipulate the records and registers to cover up the irregularities/malpractices being done by them. He further submits that the Anti Corruption Bureau is an Independent and Special Organization which conducts enquiries, raids on the irregularities, malpractices done by the state government employees and also on the institutions funded by the State Government to prevent corruption and to see that the welfare measures undertaken by the government trickle down to the needy of the society. He further submits that the effective remedy of the petitioner is that she has to make a representation to the Government to revoke the orders of her suspension, but without doing so, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petition with false contentions. Therefore, learned Standing Counsel prays to dismiss the writ petition. 8. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for Samagra Siksha while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, submits that, the petitioner has submitted her explanation with baseless reasons by deliberating her duties and responsibilities. She further submits that, the petitioner being the principal of college is overall in-charge of the college and also responsible for the administration, hence the petitioner cannot shift her burden on the staff of the college saying she is only responsible for academic wing. She further submits that, while entering the employment agreement, there were specific clauses mentioned at point nos.6 and 7, which clearly states that, the employer can terminate the employee at any time, if the employee involved in disciplinary cases/criminal cases, in such case the petitioner do not have any locus standi to challenge the suspension orders as the same is done duly keeping in view of contractual terms and agreement. Therefore, learned Standing Counsel prays to dismiss the writ petition. 9. Perused the record. 10. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, admittedly the petitioner was appointed as Special Officer in KGBV College, Ananthapur district on contract basis. Later, the petitioner was appointed as Principal of Parigi KGBV Junior College, Ananthapur district. Further, ACB Officials conducted surprise check and found some irregularities on the part of the petitioner. 10. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, admittedly the petitioner was appointed as Special Officer in KGBV College, Ananthapur district on contract basis. Later, the petitioner was appointed as Principal of Parigi KGBV Junior College, Ananthapur district. Further, ACB Officials conducted surprise check and found some irregularities on the part of the petitioner. Basing on the radio message of ACB officials, the 5 th respondent issued show-cause notice and the petitioner submitted her explanation to the said show-cause notice. As the explanation was found not satisfactory, the 5 th respondent issued suspension order vide proceedings Rc.No.1 Spl./B2/KGBV Allegations/SS/2021, dated 16.09.2021 by suspending the petitioner from service of Principal. 11. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the ACB officials without giving prior notice for search and seizure of material, conducted raid in the premise of KGBV Junior College, Parigi and without following the principles of natural justice and without taking into consideration of the explanation of the petitioner to the show-cause notice, the 5 th respondent issued the impugned order suspending the petitioner from service as Principal, KGBV Junior College, Parigi, Ananthapur district. 12. It is the contention of the learned Standing Counsels that the ACB is made for conducting surprise checks on their own initiative in cooperation with the officers of the concerned departments and departmental officers have been instructed by the government to extend cooperation to the Bureau. As per the procedure, the ACB officials conducted surprise check and found irregularities on the part of the petitioner. Accordingly, the 5 th respondent issued show cause notice, for which the petitioner has submitted her explanation. As the explanation found not satisfactory, the 5 th respondent issued the impugned order suspending the petitioner from service of the principal, which is valid and legal. 13. In view of a close scrutiny of the impugned order dated16.09.2021 shows, as rightly argued by learned counsel for the petitioner, the 5 th respondent has issued proceedings, without conducting any enquiry. 14. Therefore, it is needless to emphasize the order is devoid of reasons and bereft of following the principles of natural justice. 13. In view of a close scrutiny of the impugned order dated16.09.2021 shows, as rightly argued by learned counsel for the petitioner, the 5 th respondent has issued proceedings, without conducting any enquiry. 14. Therefore, it is needless to emphasize the order is devoid of reasons and bereft of following the principles of natural justice. In similar circumstances, a learned Single Judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, having found that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner therein and his explanation was not considered by the authority, set aside the impugned order of termination of the petitioner therein from the service and directed the concerned authority to pass appropriate order after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner. The said order squarely applies to the facts of the case on hand. 15. In Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others , AIR 1999 SC 22 = MANU/SC/0664/1998 regarding maintainability of writ petition in the context of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy, the Apex Court held thus: “14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, prohibition, Qua Warranto and Certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for "any other purpose". 15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this court not to operate as a bar in atleast three contingencies, namely, where the Writ Petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged (emphasis supplied).” The instant case falls in one of the exceptions carved out by the Apex Court, the principles of natural justice is a casualty here. 16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions of both the learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that, the 5 th respondent has passed the impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.1 Spl./B2/KGBV Allegations/SS/2021, dated 16.09.2021 without stating anything about the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 27.02.2021, which is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of the matter by remanding back to the respondents for fresh consideration. 17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.1 Spl./B2/KGBV Allegations/SS/2021, dated 16.09.2021 issued by the 5 th respondent is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the 5 th respondent with a direction to conduct fresh enquiry and pass appropriate reasoned orders, by considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 27.02.2021 and after affording an ample opportunity to the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 18. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.