N Surya Raghavendra Vs Aadikavi Nannaya University

N SURYA RAGHAVENDRA, S/O. SRI RAMA SARMA, AGED 38 YEARS, OCC. ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, R/O D. NO. 22-5-12/28, VEERABHADRAPURAM, RAJ AMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

AADIKAVI NANNAYA UNIVERSITY, Rahamahendravaram, East Godavari District Rep. by its Registrar.

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue I writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in not reinstating the petitioner into service even after completion of 2 years from the date of suspension order dated 14-10-2019 even after proving the complaint, dt.04-10- 2019 is found fake as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to G.O.Ms.No. G.O.Ms.No.86 dated 8.3.1994 and consequential G.O.Ms.No.526 dated 19.8.2008 and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service in terms of G.O.Ms.No. G.O.Ms.No.86 dated 8.3.1994 and consequential G.O.Ms.No. 526 dated 19.8.2008 forthwith in the interest of justice.

¶15

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service in terms of G.O.Ms.No. G.O.Ms.No.86 dated 8.3.1994 and consequential

¶17

2

¶18

G.O.Ms.No.526 dated 19.8.2008 forthwith pending disposal of the Writ Petition in the interest of justice.

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to advance the date of hearing of WP No 27439/ 2021 from 3-102024 to today or any other date in the interest of justiceand pass

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.P NAGENDRA REDDY

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶24

1.GADDE KOTI NAGULU SC For Adikavi nannaya University The Court made the following:

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Heard Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner

¶27

and Gadde Koti Nagulu, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

¶28

The petitioner, who has been working as an Assistant Professor in respondent University, was suspended from the service vide proceedings of the respondent dated 14.10.2019, based on a complaint dated 04.10.2019 by the students. In pursuant to the said complaint, Fact Finding Committee was appointed and enquiry was conducted. The said students appeared before the Committee and stated that they did not give any complaint. Subsequently, another complaint was made and the same was referred to the Police Station and crime was registered against the petitioner in FIR No.489 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 354(a), 509, 506 IPC. However, no Charge Memo has been issued by the respondent. The respondent University, however, ordered judicial enquiry into the issue. Challenging the same,

¶29

3

¶30

petitioner has approached this Court by way of writ petition in W.P.No.17016 of 2020. The Judicial Commission’s enquiry was stayed by this Court vide order dated 08.10.2020.

¶31

The petitioner’s contention is that it’s been six years since the petitioner was under suspension. Seeking review of the suspension, earlier approached this Court. The Court directed the respondents to review the order of suspension. Thus, the respondents have extended the suspension.

¶32

The petitioner relying on the G.O.Ms.No.526, dated 19.08.2008 contends that the respondent cannot continue the suspension indefinitely and in terms of the said G.O., the respondent has to reinstate the petitioner into service pending finalization of the disciplinary proceedings. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal proceedings.

¶33

Respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that the suspension order against the petitioner is continuing. In response to the allegations leveled against the petitioner, a Fact Finding Committee has been appointed, and the complainants have appeared before the Committee, submitting copies of the messages that the petitioner has sent to the students. It is further stated that, challenging the appointment of the Judicial Commission, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court. In the said case, an interim order of suspending the appointment of the Judicial Commission has been passed.

¶34

4

¶35

The respondent has issued Charge Memo

¶36

dated 05.03.2021 and the same was served on the petitioner. The petitioner in his reply has stated that the issuance of the Charge Memo would amount to violation of the Court orders in W.P.No.17016 of 2020 dated 08.10.2020, therefore, the departmental proceedings shall have to be stayed pending final orders in the writ petition W.P.No.17016 of 2020. The representation of the petitioner was placed before the 49^th E.C. Meeting of the University on 29.10.2021 and it has been resolved to continue the suspension of the petitioner.

¶37

It is further stated that the charges framed against the petitioner are serious. And a criminal case also was registered and the same is pending for trial.

¶38

Considered the submissions. Pursuant to the reply of the petitioner that the respondent has kept the proceedings in abeyance, and the order of suspension has been extended from time to time. Petitioner having replied to the respondent that the issuance of Charge Memo would amount to Contempt of the Court Orders, cannot now agitate that the respondent is unjustly extending the suspension order, contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.526, dated 19.08.2008. Having regard to the same, this Court is of the view that the respondent cannot be blamed for extending suspension order, since it is the petitioner who has stated that the conducting of departmental enquiry is in violation of the Court Order in the writ petition i.e., W.P.No.17016 of 2020 dated 08.10.2020, if the respondent was to proceed further with the

¶39

5

¶40

disciplinary enquiry. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent to complete the disciplinary enquiry within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of this order and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The petitioner shall cooperate with the respondent in conducting the enquiry proceedings. Pending disposal of the same, in the light of G.O.Ms.No.526, dated 19.08.2008, and subject to outcome of the disciplinary proceedings, the respondent shall reinstate the petitioner into service.

¶41