SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Y. Jaganmohan Rao, Khammam Dist vs Prl Secy, Higher Education Dept, … on 19 September, 2019


WRIT PETITION No.27937 of 2011

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief :-

“…… to issue writ or direction preferably writ of
mandamus declaring the order issued by respondent No.3
vide proc.AEC/MR/SM/B.Tech II Year civil/YJR/Complaint/FIR/
Termination/2011/2404 dt.18.8.2011 as illegal, arbitrary and
violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Sec.79
of A.P.Education Act, 1982 and consequently set aside the said
order and direct respondent No.3 to reinstate the petitioner
with all consequential benefits …..”.

Heard Mr.Kowturu Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner, Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for

3rd respondent and Sri K.Ramakanth Reddy, learned Standing

Counsel for the 4th respondent.

It has been contended by the petitioner that he was

appointed as Assistant Professor in the 3rd respondent College

during July, 2009 and he has been discharging his duties to the best

satisfaction of his superiors and everyone concerned. While so, a

false criminal case has been registered against the petitioner in

Cr.No.141 of 2011 before the Paloncha Police Station for the

alleged offence under Section 354 IPC. Based upon such

complaint being received against the petitioner, the 3rd respondent

College has terminated the services of the petitioner vide order

dated 18.08.2011 without obtaining prior permission from the

competent authority under Section 79 of the A.P.Education Act.

Challenging the said termination order, the present writ petition is



Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the

termination order is stigmatic alleging that the petitioner had

involved in a criminal case, without conducting any enquiry and

without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent

had straight away terminated the service of the petitioner.

Therefore, the impugned termination order is liable to be set aside.

Apart from that, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner was tried by the competent Sessions Court in

S.C.No.150 of 2012 and he was acquitted by the Principal Assistant

Sessions Judge, Kothagudem vide judgment dated 14.11.2018. In

view of acquittal of the petitioner, which was the basis for the 3rd

respondent to terminate the service of the petitioner, in all fairness,

the 3rd respondent has to re-consider the termination order and

reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits.

Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent has contended that if

the petitioner submits a representation by enclosing a copy of the

judgment in S.C.No.150 of 2012 dated 14.11.2018, the 3rd

respondent would consider the same and appropriate orders would

be passed in accordance with law.

This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by

the learned counsel for the respective parties, is of the considered

view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the

petitioner to submit a representation to the respondents claiming

reinstatement into service by enclosing a copy of the judgment in

S.C.No.150 of 2012 dated 14.11.2018 within two weeks from the date

of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such representation being

received, the respondents shall consider the same and pass

appropriate orders in accordance with law within four weeks


With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation