HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
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.
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J