Petitioner suspended as Chief Superintendent of Examinations for alleged negligence. Court held extent of fault is for enquiry to decide and directed completion of proceedings within two months.
Direction to conclude disciplinary proceedings within 2 months from receipt of this order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.23261 of 2011
ORDER:
The petitioner is working as Junior Lecturer in A.P. Residential School/Junior College, Brahmamgari Mattam, Kadapa District. S.S.C. Public Examination was conducted in March, 2011. The petitioner acted as Chief Superintendent of Examinations for the institution. As part of his duty, he was required to collect the question papers from the Police Station on the date concerned. Alleging that instead of collecting one set of papers, he has collected another set and that in turn gave rise to several complications, respondent No.1 passed an order on 25.04.2011, placing the petitioner under suspension, pending enquiry. The same is challenged in this writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner was placed under suspension, pending enquiry alleging that he failed to discharge his duties in the matter of conducting public examination properly. The extent of negligence or dereliction on the part of the petitioner needs to be established in the ongoing enquiry. Since the enquiry is said to be in advanced stage, it can be required to be completed within a short time.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before this Court, the copies of the orders through which the Government had reinstated the Teachers, who are also alleged to have resorted to similar acts. That hardly constitutes any precedent. Much would depend upon the manner in which the respective departments or the institutions view the matter.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing respondent
No.1 to conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________ L.NARASIMHA
REDDY,J Dt:18.08.2011 kdl
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can direct completion of disciplinary proceedings pending against a suspended teacher amidst allegations of negligence.
Petitioner (Junior Lecturer)
Respondent No.1 (Government/Employer)
L.Narasimha Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
