Dismissed

G.Pulla Reddy Engineering College (Autonomous), v. R.Revanth Kumar

Telangana HC22 Mar 2011WA/138/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ appeal filed by a college against an order setting aside a disciplinary punishment. The single judge had allowed a petition against the college's action of rustication and debarring examinations. This court held that the college violated natural justice by failing to issue a hearing notice before punishing the student.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal dismissed; parties open to take appropriate action.

G.Pulla Reddy Engineering College (Autonomous), Vs… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO

¶2

¶3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD

¶4

WRIT APPEAL No.138 of 2011

¶5

Date: 22.03.2011

¶6

Between:

¶7

G. Pulla Reddy Engineering College (Autonomous), Kurnool, rep. by its Principal

¶8

….Appellant.

¶9

And:

¶10

R. Revanth Kumar and another

¶11

…..Respondents.

¶12

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO

¶13

¶14

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD

¶15

WRIT APPEAL No.138 of 2011

¶16

JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Prakash Rao)

¶17

Heard Sri Meharchand Nori, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, Sri J. Janakirami Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent and Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent and at the request of the

¶18

parties, the main appeal itself has taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

¶19

The 1^st respondent herein is the petitioner in W.P.No.16914 of 2010 which was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus to declare the impugned proceedings dated 1.6.2010 issued by the appellant herein awarding punishment of rustication of the petitioner from the college for one academic year i.e., 2010-2011 and further debarring the petitioner from writing of any examinations during October, 2010 and April, 2011 as arbitrary, illegal and consequently to set aside the same.

¶20

The learned single Judge after hearing both sides, allowed the writ petition by setting aside the impugned proceedings only to the extent of debarring the petitioner from the examinations to be held in April, 2011 and further directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to write the backlog examinations, in the ensuing examinations to be held in April, 2011 or at any other point of time.

¶21

Aggrieved by the same, the 2^nd respondent therein has preferred the present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

¶22

The learned counsel for the appellant has pleaded that their college awarded punishment of rustication from the college for one academic year i.e., 2010-2011 and debarring the petitioner from writing the examinations during October, 2010 and April, 2011 for the offences of malpractices, fraud and committing impersonation by the 1^st respondent herein while writing the final year exams of 2^nd year B. Tech II Semester examinations.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent, on the other hand, has pleaded that the 1^st respondent was not given any notice for submitting his explanation before taking the disciplinary

¶24

action for the alleged malpractice, fraud and impersonation and therefore the learned single Judge has rightly set aside the impugned proceedings of the appellant herein and the same cannot be interfered with by this Court.

¶25

It is well settled that the principles of natural justice should not be violated and the 1^st respondent herein should be given an opportunity of hearing by issuing notice to him. Admittedly, the appellant has not issued any such notice to the 1^st respondent herein before imposing the punishment and therefore, the appellant has violated the principles of natural justice. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any merits in this appeal and we hold that an opportunity should be given to the 1^st respondent by issuing the notice for hearing him about the alleged allegations and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶26

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. However, it is open for the parties to take appropriate action in accordance with law. No order as to costs.

¶27

______________________ B. PRAKASH RAO,J.

¶28

_____________________ P.DURGA PRASAD,J.

¶29

Date: 22.03.2011. Gk.

¶30

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO

¶31

¶32

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD

¶33

WRIT APPEAL No.138 of 2011

¶34

Date:22.03.2011

¶35

Gk.

G.Pulla Reddy Engineering College (Autonomous), v. R.Revanth Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Pulla Reddy Engineering College (Autonomous), v. R.Revanth Kumar

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

Gattu Buchanna Vs The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy Collector

Pedda Hanmanthu Vs The Land Acquisition Officer and Spl Deputy Collector

Y.Buddanna, Vs The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy Collector

Mohd. Haneef Malik (died) per LRs 2 to 5 Vs Khatija Bhanu and Nasira Bhanu and Another

Y. Satyanarayana Vs The Kukatpally Municipality

Sri Valli Shipping and Transport Vs The Hindustan Shipyard Limited