Dismissed

Slv Educational Society, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Nov 2021WP/14502/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging a direction to attend an enquiry into allegations of fund misuse and irregularities in school functioning. The court held that since the complaints included scope beyond the previously dismissed PIL, a fresh enquiry notice was valid.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; direct petitioners to attend enquiry and submit relevant records.

Slv Educational Society, Vs The State of… — Education and Admissions | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶2

Writ Petition No.14502 of 2021

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioners pray for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of 2^nd respondent in directing the 4^th respondent to enquire into the allegations made against the petitioners regarding opening, upgradation, bifurcation of schools under the management of 1^st petitioner Society as illegal, arbitrary and for a consequential direction to set aside the proceedings of 4^th respondent in Rc.No.2614/B3/2021 dated 15.07.2021.

¶5

2. The case of petitioners is thus:

¶6

The 1^st petitioner is the Educational Society and 2^nd petitioner is the aided High School of 1^st petitioner. The 1^st petitioner Society was established with five primary schools and two High Schools in Prakasam District to impart education to backward classes, weaker sections and orphans etc. The Primary High School was established in the year 1983 by 1^st petitioner Society by securing necessary permissions from the Education Department. Subsequently it was upgraded to Upper Primary School w.e.f. June 1985 and classes VI and VII were started in Telugu medium. Seven SGT posts were admitted to grant-in-aid by the State Government in primary and upgraded sections vide G.O.Rt.No.8, Education Department, dated 03.01.1992 and G.O.Ms.No.411 dated 10.11.1994. From the Academic Year 2002-03 SBNRM aided upper Primary School, Komarole was upgraded as High School with permission to start VIII to X (un-aided) classes vide Memo No.8376/TS-

¶7

¶8

21/2002-1 dated 17.08.2002. The schools under the 1^st petitioner Society were administered as per the directions and guidelines of the educational society. While so, in the Academic Year 2014-15 one M.Tirupathi Reddy, who was working as B.Ed. Assistant in SBNRM aided High School, Kothapalle, was removed from service after conducting enquiry on the charges of Sexual Harassment of a female teacher and a girl student of the same school. The same was the subject matter of legal proceedings before the Hon’ble High Court. Thereafter, one C.Bala Venkat Reddy, a relative of Tirupati Reddy, instituted PIL No.341/2015 before the undivided High Court of A.P. against the institutions under the management of 1^st petitioner Society. A counter affidavit was filed by the petitioners in the said PIL denying the allegations. The said PIL was dismissed on 28.03.2016. However, it was left open to the Department to conduct enquiry if necessary. The 1^st respondent had already conducted a detailed enquiry through its educational officers and reports were also filed into Court and therefore, the 1^st respondent did not feel it necessary to further enquire into the matter. However, on instigation of certain vested interests, the ACB Department which was also arrayed as respondent in PIL, has registered FIR No.01/RCO-OGL/2018 dated 21.01.2018 under Section 154 & 157 Cr.P.C. However, no charge sheet has been filed even after the lapse of 3 ½ years after completion of investigation. The petitioners were under the bonafide impression that consequent to the sworn affidavit filed on behalf of 1^st respondent in the PIL, the allegations against 1^st petitioner stood concluded on the basis of enquiry conducted and reports filed into

¶9

¶10

the Court in the said PIL. However, the 4^th respondent in his proceedings vide Rc.No.2614/B3/2021 dated 07.07.2021 directed the management of 2^nd petitioner School to attend enquiry on 10.07.2021 and keep ready all records and files of the management of schools relating to opening, upgradation and bifurcation of schools, admission of posts into grant-inaid, Midday meals, Text Book Distribution, Uniform, Bicycle distribution. The enquiry is contemplated on the representation made by one M. Tirumala Reddy pursuance to the memo dated 21.06.2021 issued by the 2^nd respondent. The copy of the said memo was not furnished by the petitioners. The representation of the said M. Tirumala Reddy contains the following allegations

¶11

I. Though the 2^nd petitioner school is unaided school the correspondent of the school with the support of the authorities running as an aided school.

¶12

II.The School is utilizing the services of 6 aided teachers though not eligible showing as aided school.

¶13

III.School is making loss of government funds in lakhs of Rupees on the pretext of Mid-day Meal, Text Books, Cycles etc.

¶14

Petitioners submits that the above allegations are similar to the allegations leveled in the PIL and also in the FIR dated 21.01.2018. Petitioners have already filed detailed counter in the PIL refuting those allegations. The 1^st respondent also filed detailed counter stating that allegations were found to be false after conducting enquiry. The 2^nd respondent herein who was the respondent No.5 in the said PIL knows all these facts but he mechanically directed the 4^th respondent to enquire into the matter without verification of the facts. The said direction is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, the petitioners are questioning the

¶15

¶16

legality and validity of the action of respondent Nos.2 and 4 in proposing to conduct an enquiry once again on the same matter which stood concluded by an earlier enquiry and also the same is pending subject matter before the ACB investigation. In fact the petitioners submitted a representation dated 14.07.2021 to the respondents stating that previous enquiry conducted by the authorities was on the same allegations and they were found to be false and frivolous. However, without considering the representation of the petitioners and without looking into the prima facie truth in the allegations made by the complainant mechanically enquiry is sought to be proceeded with. The present enquiry is not sustainable for the following reasons.

¶17

Firstly, the complaint was filed by C. Bala Venkata Reddy on 11.12.2014. The said enquiry was conducted by the respondent authorities and found that allegations were false. Secondly, this High Court has dismissed the PIL No.341/2015 holding that there is no substance in the allegations. Thirdly, FIR dated 21.01.2018 was registered on the same set of allegations and the investigation is pending. In the said FIR the Director, ACB submitted report stating that allegations are not sustainable. Fourthly, one Veeramreddy Pedda Subba Reddy who is also relative of M. Tirupathi Reddy filed one more petition raising the same allegations.

¶18

The Respondent authorities once again conducted enquiry and submitted report dated NIL-03-2017 observing that allegations were already covered in PIL and detailed enquiry was already conducted

¶19

¶20

previously with respect to the same charges. Now, on the same grounds the complaint was filed by one M. Tirumala Reddy. Hence, the writ petition.

¶21

3. Respondent No.4 filed counter and opposed the writ petition contending as follows:

¶22

It is contended that the present writ petition is not maintainable under law inasmuch as the respondents issued impugned proceeding to the petitioner only to attend the enquiry dated 10.07.2021 and keep ready all the records of the management and schools relating to opening and upgradation and bifurcation of schools, admission of posts into grant-inaid, Mid-day meals, text books distributions uniforms and bicycles etc. Further, the proceedings dated 15.07.2021 are nothing but informing the petitioner with regard to the postponement of scheduled enquiry to be conducted on 16.07.2021 and that the enquiry would be on 24.07.2021 and so far no adverse orders are passed necessitating interference of this Court. Thus, the notice to the petitioner is only to attend enquiry and to furnish details as stated supra. As such, the petitioner failed to make out any case, warranting the interference of this Court.

¶23

It is further contended that M. Tirumala Reddy submitted a complaint. As such the respondent authorities are duty bound to conduct enquiry into the matter as the allegations are serious in nature. Therefore, the 2^nd respondent vide memo ESE02-18022/50/2021-PS 3- CSE, dated 21.06.2021 issued orders to the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to

¶24

¶25

conduct a joint enquiry on the allegations levelled against the petitioner management and submit detailed report along with specific remarks and recommendations on each allegation, in pursuance thereof, the respondent issued impugned notice for enquiry to attend enquiry along with the records and files of the management of schools relating to opening and up-gradation and bifurcation of schools, admission of posts into Grant-in-aid, Mid-day meals, text books distribution, uniforms, bicycles etc. vide proceedings RC No.2614/B3/2021, dated 07.07.2021 of the 4^th respondent. The 2^nd petitioner vide his letter dated 09.07.2021 requested to postpone the enquiry for 10 days. Accordingly, the enquiry was postponed to 16.07.2021 and also on his further request, the enquiry was postponed to 24.07.2021 vide proceedings dated 15.07.2021. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed the present writ petition with a malafide intention. The petitioner can submit relevant records and his pleadings before the enquiry committee and nothing prevents him. In fact, the impugned notices are also self-explanatory and inasmuch as, notices required the petitioners to be ready with all records and files of management of schools relating to issues raised in the notices.

¶26

Respondents further contended that admittedly the PIL was dismissed on the ground of the locus-standi of the petitioner. However, the Division Bench observed that the said order does not preclude the competent authorities to take appropriate action as warranted by law, if any allegations are found in the affairs of the institutions run by the respondent No.23. Now, the present complaint was filed with the

¶27

¶28

allegations not only with regard to the Mid-day meals funds, but also in respect of the opening and up-gradation and bifurcation of schools, admission of posts into Grant-in-aid etc. As such the impugned notices were issued to conduct enquiry into the matter referred therein. The petitioner is duty bound to furnish relevant documents and respondents have every authority to require the petitioners to furnish relevant documents.

¶29

It is further contended in the counter that the allegation of the petitioner that on the instigation of certain vested interests, ACB booked FIR No.01/RCO-OGL/2018, dated 21.01.2018 and no charge sheet is filed so far, is concerned, the present respondents are not connected with the said crime registered against the petitioner therefore the alleged ACB case cannot be shown as ground to restrain the respondents to conduct enquiry into the affairs of the petitioner institutions. The allegations in the PIL are confined to the fraud in the Mid-day meals, whereas the present complaint relates to the opening and up-gradation and bifurcation of schools, admission of posts into Grant-in-aid, Mid-day meals, text books distribution, uniforms, bicycles etc. Hence, the enquiry can go on. The objections of the petitioner against conducting enquiry are not justiciable under law. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.

¶30

¶31

4. Heard arguments of learned Senior Counsel Sri D.V. Sitarama Murthy on behalf of Sri C. Sunil Kumar Reddy learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Education.

¶32

5. The main plank of argument of learned Senior Counsel is that one M. Tirupathi Reddy who worked as B.Ed. Assistant in SBNRM aided High School, Kothapalle, was removed from service after conducting enquiry on the charges of Sexual Harassment of a female teacher and a girl student and at his behest, his relative C. Bala Venkat Reddy filed PIL No.341/2015 before Common High Court of Andhra Pradesh on certain allegations and in the said PIL, the Secretary, School Education filed detailed sworn affidavit dated 16.02.2016 stating that the PIL allegations were found to be false after due enquiry. The said PIL was dismissed on 28.03.2016. In the meanwhile, on instigation of some vested interests the ACB police registered FIR No.01/RCO-OGL/2018 dated 21.01.2018 against the petitioners’ school but so far charge sheet has not been filed. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that while the matter stood thus, on the same allegations which are covered by the PIL and FIR, another representation /complaint was given by M. Tirumala Reddy who is also relative of M. Tirupathi Reddy. Basing on the oft-repeated allegations, respondent No.2 directed the respondent No.4 to conduct enquiry. Learned Senior Counsel vehemently argued that the entire gamut of events would clearly show that the present enquiry is undertaken only to target the petitioner institution and tarnish its image. As such the same allegations cannot be enquired into for multiple times.

¶33

¶34

He thus prayed to allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned proceedings.

¶35

6. In oppugnation, learned Government Pleader argued that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed inasmuch as the impugned notice was issued to the petitioner only to produce the relevant records relating to establishment and functioning of the petitioner’s educational institution and the respondent authorities under law have power to inspect the records from time to time and therefore, the petitioner cannot impugn the action of the respondents. Learned Government Pleader further submitted that the allegations in the PIL are confined to misuse of Midday meal scheme by the petitioner and also by some of the respondent authorities and on enquiry, the said allegation was found to be incorrect and therefore, the respondents therein filed sworn counter affidavit denying the allegations in the PIL. The allegations leveled in the present complaint by the complainant M. Tirumala Reddy are not confined to misuse of Mid-day meal scheme but include wide spectrum of other misuses in the aspects of opening, up-gradation and bifurcation of schools, admission of posts into grant-in-aid, Mid-day meals, Text Book Distribution, Uniform, Bicycle distribution etc. Since the scope and amplitude of the present complaint is larger than the one in the PIL, the dismissal of the PIL will have no impact on the instant complaint and taking up of consequential enquiry. Notice was issued to the petitioner only to produce accounts for verification but by that count, the petitioner

¶36

¶37

cannot harp that he is aggrieved in any manner. He thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶38

7 . The petitioners filed reply to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.4.

¶39

It is contended that the present complaint allegations are squarely covered by the allegations in the PIL, inasmuch as, as in the present complaint, complainant alleges that the petitioners’ society on the basis of bogus rolls of students got sanctioned Grant-in-aid posts and without entitlement got sanctioned the mid-day meals and misappropriated the government funds and also misused the funds in the matter of sanction of text-books, uniforms, merit scholarships and other incentives given by the Government with the connivance of Government Educational Officers and submitted false particulars to the Hon’ble Court. The complaint allegations are referable to the earlier complaint allegations are also in PIL No.341/2015. Those allegations were verified and report was submitted and those particulars were mentioned in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent authorities in the PIL. Hence, there cannot be enquiry once again into the same allegations.

¶40

Further the information relating to educational institutions viz., the date of establishment, grant of recognition, admission to grant-in-aid, number of aided and unaided posts etc., are digitally available with the respondent 1 and 2. For that matter there is no requirement to direct the petitioner to appear for enquiry. Similarly, the incentives to the students such as text-books, bicycles etc., were given on the basis of biometric

¶41

¶42

identification of the students directly. Those benefits were not conferred through the management of educational institutions. Hence, it is pointless to call for the information from the petitioners on such allegations.

¶43

Nextly, it is contended that since past four years no merit scholarships have been claimed under the management of the 1^st petitioner society . This is also within the knowledge of the respondents. Therefore, it is incomprehensible as to what information the 4^th respondent seeks from the petitioner in this regard.

¶44

Under the previous Government, bicycles were sanctioned to the girl students of the high schools. However, bicycles were not allotted to girl students of the high school under the management of the 1^st petitioner and therefore, W.P.No.17016 of 2019 was filed complaining non-allotment of the bicycles. Therefore, the enquiry in that regard is nothing but undue harassment. Thus, the repeated enquiries against the petitioners would amount to undue harassment. Hence, the writ petition may be allowed.

¶45

Per contra the Government Pleader supported the impugned notices and claimed that the writ is preposterous.

¶46

8. I gave my anxious consideration to the above respective submissions.

¶47

As can be seen the main objection of the petitioner is that since the allegation in the present complaint are already covered in the PIL

¶48

¶49

application which was dismissed, the respondent authorities cannot conduct enquiry. On the other hand, the contention of the respondent is that the present complaint allegations are much wider in scope and amplitude and hence the authorities can enquire into the matter and at this stage notice was issued to the petitioner only to produce records and petitioner cannot claim that he is prejudiced in any manner and on that count the writ petition is not maintainable.

¶50

A perusal of the averments in the PIL No.341/2015 would show that the said PIL was filed by C. Bala Venkata Reddy with the following main allegations. Firstly, it is alleged that there was misappropriation of government funds of about Rs. 3.5 Crores and official respondent Nos.1 to 4 were not taking any action against the respondent Nos.5 to 23. Secondly, that though the respondent Nos.14 and 15 are private unaided high schools, still the respondent authorities paid funds approximately Rs.30 lakhs to the schools for the mid-day meals and the said payment was being made since 2008. Though the petitioner made representation to all the authorities, no action had been initiated so far. Thus, the authorities committed fraud and misused the Government funds. Thirdly, it is alleged that the authorities made payment of salary to respondent No.22 together with arrears for a period of 1½ years even though the respondent No.22 did not discharge the duties in the school. It is also contended that though respondent No.14 is functioning as an un-aided high school, but the teachers who were appointed in private aided schools are discharging their duties by taking classes to the

¶51

¶52

unaided high school students and the authorities are paying salaries to them.

¶53

In the said PIL a detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of official respondent Nos.1, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 denying the allegations in the PIL.

¶54

It was stated that as against the allegations the Regional Joint Director, Guntur sought clarification from the District Educational Officer, Prakasam District who got the matter enquired and submitted report and the said report would show that the allegations made by the petitioner in the PIL were vague and incorrect. The respondents gave details in the counter as to how the petitioner averments are false.

¶55

Be that it may, the Common High Court of Andhra Pradesh has, in its order dated 28.3.2016 dismissed the PIL on the following observations:

¶56

“9. The specific objection on locus standi of petitioner to initiate Public Interest Litigation is not denied. The person prosecuting public interest litigation should not have any interest, even remotely to the cause espoused in the PIL. When specific allegations are made against the bona fides of the person prosecuting the PIL, which are not denied, at the instance of such person, Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction.

¶57

Public Interest Litigation merits no consideration and accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that this order does not preclude competent authority to take appropriate action as warranted by law if any allegations are found in the affairs of institutions run by respondent No.23. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending shall stand closed.”

¶58

The above are the particulars relating to the allegations made in

¶59

the PIL and counter submitted thereon. Then, coming to the instant

¶60

¶61

complaint, one M. Tirumala Reddy, Madanapalle submitted a complaint to the Commissioner of School Education, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada, a copy of which is filed along with material papers. The complaint petition shows that Hon’ble Minister for Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh made endorsement to the Director of School Education to appoint an enquiry committee to submit a detailed report. It is in this context the impugned notice has been issued by the District Educational Officer, Prakasam District, Ongole - 4^th respondent herein to the petitioner.

¶62

9. I have perused the allegations made in the complaint petition. It must be stated that the petition contains allegation not only relating to misuse of mid-day meals scheme but also about the functioning of teachers of the aided schools in un-aided schools relating to the petitioners’ educational institutions, misuse of text-books, uniforms, merit scholarships granted by the Government on concessional rates etc. Therefore, though there are few similarities in the allegations between the PIL and the present complaint, however, the present complaint petition contains additional allegations. Of course, in the reply affidavit the petitioner tried to explain that there was no question of any misuse of text books, uniforms, merit scholarships, distribution of bicycles to girl students etc., However, it is for the authorities to verify those particulars and come to a decision in accordance with law. As rightly contended by learned Government Pleader, the impugned notice was issued requesting the petitioner school authorities to attend enquiry and keep ready all the

¶63

¶64

records and files of the Management and schools relating to opening and up-gradation and bifurcation of schools, admission of posts into Grant-in-aid, Mid-day meals, text book distribution, uniforms, bicycles etc. The said notice do not even remotely contain the pre-concluded opinion of the authorities that the petitioner committed any wrong.

¶65

At this stage, the petitioner cannot harp that he is prejudiced by the notice. Therefore, the petitioner shall attend enquiry and submit relevant records for the verification in due compliance of the notices dated 07.07.2021 and 15.07.2021. I find no merits in the writ petition.

¶66

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed . No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶67

__________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

¶68

03^rd November, 2021 krk

¶69

¶70

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶71

W.P No.14502 of 2021

¶72

03^rd November, 2021

¶73

krk

Slv Educational Society, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Slv Educational Society, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sagar Degree College Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Sagar Degree College Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V Venkata Rao Vs the State of Ap

Bhupesh Rawal Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vagdevi Educational Society, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chinmaya Vidyalaya, Guntur Vs Secy, School Education, Hyd and 3 Ot