Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Dr. P.Krishna Mohan Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 16 June, 2020
Author: G. Shyam Prasad
Bench: G. Shyam Prasad
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD
Writ Petition No.9418 of 2020
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 in issuing impugned order in Ref.No.UGC-I(2)/CASH/2020 dated 04.03.2020 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently to set aside the order in Ref.No.UGC-I(2)/CASH/ 2020 dated 04.03.2020.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education appearing for the respondents.
3. The petitioner is working as Assistant Professor in the Department of History of Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati, since 1987. He received a letter from Prof. Savitramma, Chairperson of the Committee on (Sexual Harassment & Corruption Grievances (CASH & CG)) informing him to attend a meeting on 22.11.2019. Accordingly, the petitioner attended the meeting, wherein respondent No.2 issued the impugned proceedings dated 04.03.2020 with the following order:
"As per the recommendations of the Committee against Sexual Harassment first read above, Dr.P Krishna Mohan Reddy, Assistant Professor, Department of History, S.V.U College of Arts, Tirupati should not be assigned the valuation of answer scripts of the students and he is warned for his misbehaviour against girl students in the class room. If he repeats such lapses in future, Stern disciplinary action would be taken against him as per rules".2
4. Aggrieved by the order dated 04.03.2020 referred above, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the Rector of the University dated 12.03.2020. The said representation has not been considered by the concerned authorities. The petitioner is apprehending that the respondents may take disciplinary action against him in the light of the proceedings dated 04.03.2020.
5. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner clearly reveals that it is the apprehension of the petitioner that the respondents may take disciplinary action in pursuance of the proceedings of the Rector dated 04.03.2020. The apprehension of the petitioner has no basis, as no material has been produced by him to that effect. In fact, prima facie the order reads that "if the petitioner repeats such lapses in future, stern disciplinary action would be taken against him as per rules". Therefore, it has to be understood that whenever any such lapses occurs in future, action will be taken. The order referred above is in the nature of warning. In fact the further case of the petitioner is that he is innocent and he had not committed any such lapse. Therefore, he had submitted his representation to the respondents in that regard, to prove his innocence.
6. In fact the observations made in the order dated 04.03.2020, are adverse to the petitioner. It appears that no enquiry has been conducted and no opportunity was given to the petitioner for making his submissions. It is in violation of principles of natural justice.
7. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the CASH Committee established in the University did not 3 have any clear procedure to proceed with any complaint instituted before it. It is the further submitted that the CASH Committee has not only violated the principles of natural justice, but also provided a copy of the complaint to the wife of the petitioner, which was used in Family Court proceedings against him, violating the principles of natural justice.
8. The proceedings those took place in respect of the subject matter of Writ Petition reveals that on the complaint of students, the committee called cash C & D has submitted a report to the rector, and he had served a Memo to the petitioner, which is under challenge now, which reads below:
"As per recommendations of the Committee against Sexual Harassment 1st read above, Dr. P. Krishna Mohan Reddy, Assistant Professor, Dept., of History, S.V.U.College of Arts, Tirupati, should not be assigned the valuation of answer scripts of the students and he is warned for his misbehavior against girl students in the class room. If he repents such lapses in future, stern disciplinary action would be taken against him as per rules."
9. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not given an opportunity to defend his case before the CASH Committee, in fact, he submitted a representation to the Registrar dt. 12.03.2020 against the present impugned Memo dt. 04.03.2020.
10. On consideration of the arguments of both sides, this court is of the considered view that since the petitioner had already made a representation to the Registrar vide letter dt. 12.03.2020, the same shall be considered by the concerned Authority and may pass appropriate orders and conduct due enquiry into the matter, 4 by giving an opportunity in respect of the Memo issued to him. In fact, this court is not inclined to go into the merits of the petition. It was a warning and the petitioner had submitted a representation in writing.
11. In this background of this matter, the respondents shall consider the letter of petitioner dt. 12.03.2020 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, preferably within six (6) months from the date of receipt of this order. Consequently the order in Ref.No.UGC-I(2)/CASH/2020 dated 04.03.2020 is set aside.
12. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any in the writ petition, shall also stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD Date: 16.06.2020 RVK/Gvl 5 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD Writ Petition No.9418 of 2020 Date: 16.06.2020 RVK