Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Dr.V.Damodara Naidu, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 21 December, 2019
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
WRIT PETITION No.9925 OF 2019
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the following relief:
"To issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents 1 to 3 in ordering preliminary enquiry against the Petitioner vide impugned proceedings dated 06.06.2019 of the 1st Respondent, 07.06.2019 of the 2nd Respondent and Memo No.AGC01/79/Agri.III/2019 dated 11.06.2019 and 02.07.2019 of the 3rd Respondent and the consequential enquiry being conducted by the 4th Respondent and all his proceedings in connection with such enquiry as illegal, null, void, without jurisdiction, unconstitutional, contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Agricultural University Act, 1963, against the principles of natural justice and mala fide and to pass such other order or orders."
2. Petitioner herein is the Vice Chancellor of Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, 5th respondent herein. His Excellency the Governor of Andhra Pradesh appointed the petitioner herein as Vice Chancellor of the 5th respondent- University for a period of three years from the date of assumption of the office and the same was notified vide G.O.Ms.No.48 2 Agriculture and Co-operation (Agri.III) Department dated 05.06.2017. Claiming to be the employees of the 5th respondent- University, certain people submitted a representation to His Excellency the Governor on 01.06.2019, alleging financial irregularities, and copies of the said representation were also marked to the Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Personal Secretary to the Principal Secretary of the Hon'ble Chief Minister and the Special Chief Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture and Co-operation. The office of the Chief Secretary forwarded the same to the Special Chief Secretary (Agriculture)- 2nd respondent herein, while instructing to appoint the Special Commissioner of Agriculture as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the allegations and to submit a report. Thereafter, the State Government, vide memo bearing No.AGC01/79/Agri.III/2019 dated 11.06.2019, appointed the Special Commissioner of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh, Guntur, as Enquiry Officer to conduct a preliminary enquiry and to submit report to the Government. Thereafter, the Special Commissioner of Agriculture addressed a letter bearing No.ID-Admn./01/2019 dated 27.06.2019, asking the Registrar of the 5th respondent- University to furnish the information along with documentary evidence, on each of the allegations for taking up the enquiry and to submit a report to the Government. Subsequently, in partial modification of the earlier orders of appointment of 3 enquiry officer, the State Government issued a memo bearing No.AGC01/79/Agri.III/2019, dated 02.07.2019, appointing the Special Commissioner of Agriculture Marketing, Andhra Pradesh, Guntur, as Enquiry Officer. The Special Commissioner and Director of Agricultural Marketing, vide letter bearing Lr.No.SPL.COMMR-MKTG/1/2019, dated Nil-07-2019, while indicating the names of the employees, who said to have made a complaint, asked the Registrar of the 5th respondent-University, to inform the date of enquiry as 06.07.2019 at 11-30 a.m. to the complainants. Thereafter, the 5th respondent submitted certain particulars also to the Enquiry Officer. Vide Lr.No.SPL.COMMR- MKTG/1/2019, dated 16.07.2019, the Special Commissioner and Director of Agricultural Marketing requested the Registrar of the 5th respondent-University to furnish certain information by 18.07.2019. The same was followed by another letter asking for some more information. While assailing the entire above said exercise undertaken by the State Government as one without jurisdiction, mala fide and contrary to law, the present Writ Petition came to be filed.
3. This Court on 25.07.2019, granted interim suspension of the operation of the proceedings in Memo No.AGC01/79/Agri.III/2019 dated 02.07.2019 for a period of four weeks and the same stood extended from time to time. 4
4. Resisting the Writ Petition and the stand taken therein, a counter affidavit, deposed by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Agriculture and Co-operation Department, the 3rd respondent herein, is filed. A reply is also filed to the said counter affidavit. I.A. No.3 of 2019 is filed by one Sri Gali Sudarshana Naidu under Rule 16A of the Writ Rules, praying this Court to permit him to come on record as 6th respondent in the Writ Petition. The same is disposed of vide separate order.
5. Heard Sri M.S.Prasad, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri K.M.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Sudhakar Reddy Ponnavolu, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents 1 to 4 and Sri D.Jnaneswar Naidu, learned Standing Counsel for the 5th respondent-University.
6. Reiterating the pleadings in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and the reply affidavit filed in response to the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, learned Senior Counsel, Sri M.S.Prasad, contends that since the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University Act, 1963 (hereinafter called 'the Act') do not authorize the State Government to initiate any action on the Vice Chancellor of the University, the impugned action is liable to be declared as one without jurisdiction and void and deserves to be deprecated. It is 5 the further contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the entire action initiated is tainted with mala fides and is obviously an attempt to dislodge the petitioner in an unceremonious manner. It is further maintained by the learned Senior Counsel that His Excellency the Governor alone is the competent authority to initiate any proceedings, but not the State Government, as such, the questioned action is ultra vires the power of the State Government. It is also the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the mode of enquiry being adopted by the State Government is highly atrocious and alien to law and cannot be permitted against a person in the position of Vice Chancellor. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the respondents 1 to 3 grossly erred in initiating the enquiry on the basis of anonymous complaints said to have been made by certain employees of the University and the said action is contrary to instructions of the Union of India, vide office Memoranda dated 08.10.2013 and 18.10.2013. In order to substantiate his contentions and in support of the same, the learned Senior Counsel places reliance of the following judgments:
(1) S.R.Venkataraman v. Union of India (UoI) and others1.
(2) State of Andhra Pradesh and others v.
Goverdhanlal Pitti2.
1 (1979) 2 SCC 491 2 (2003) 4 SCC 739 6 (3) Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad and others3.
(4) Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and others v. Union of India and others4.
(5) Noida Entrepreneurs Association v. Noida and others5.
(6) M/s. Kasturi Lal, Lakshmi Reddy, represented by its Partner Shri Kasturi Lal, Ward No.4, Palace, Bar, Poonch, Jammu and others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and another6.
(7) Md. Ammanullah Ghouri v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others7.
(8) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chintaman Sadashiva Waishampayan8.
(9) Deepak Agro Foods v. State of Rajasthan and others9.
(10) M.I.Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu and others10.
(11) C.S. Rowjee represented by Power of Attorney Holder Sri C.Apparao Rowjee and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others11.
7. Strongly and emphatically resisting the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, it is maintained by the learned Additional Advocate General that there is absolutely no illegality, nor there exists any 3 (2012) 4 SCC 407 4 (1986) 1 SCC 133 5 (2011) 6 SCC 508 6 (1980) 4 SCC 1 7 (2013) 3 ALD 345 8 AIR 1961 SC 1623 9 (2008) 7 SCC 748 10 (1999) 6 SCC 464 11 AIR 1964 SC 962 7 procedural infirmity, in the impugned action, and in the absence of the same, invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is impermissible, and as such, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. In elaboration, it is further contended by the learned Additional Advocate General that having regard to the provisions of Sections 3 and 8 of the Act, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the State Government has no power to enquire into the affairs of the University. It is also the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that by way of the impugned action, the State Government, in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of the Act, is undertaking enquiry into the affairs of the University, but not any disciplinary enquiry against the Vice Chancellor, as is being agitated by the petitioner. It is also the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that there cannot be any dispute with regard to the power of His Excellency the Governor under Section 10 of the Act in respect of the disciplinary action against the Vice Chancellor. It is also the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that the Principal Secretary to His Excellency the Governor, the Governor Secretariat addressed a letter bearing No.3322/A3/S/2018 dated 04.10.2018 to the Special Chief Secretary to Government, Agriculture and Co-operation Department, forwarding a representation dated 22.09.2018, which the office of His 8 Excellency the Governor received from All India Central/PSUs & State Government Scheduled Tribe Employees Welfare Association. It is also the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that a representation dated 01.06.2019, which was addressed to His Excellency the Governor also contains the signatures of the addressee, as such, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that on the basis of the anonymous complaints, the enquiry has been initiated, is absolutely incorrect. While referring to a representation said to have been made by the employees of the University, which is filed along with the Writ Petition as a material paper, it is also the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that the enquiry is not on the basis of the anonymous complaints as it contains the signatures of the complainants.
8. In the above background, now the issues which this Court is called upon to answer are:
(1) Whether the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University Act, 1963, empowers the State Government to undertake the impugned enquiry?
(2) What is the scope of the enquiry which the State Government is entitled to undertake as per the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University Act, 1963?9
9. Pleadings and the contentions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel Sri M.S.Prasad and the learned Additional Advocate General Sri Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy obviously revolve round the aspect of jurisdiction of the State Government to undertake the instant enquiry, which is impugned in the present Writ Petition. In order to resolve and determine the said issue, it would be highly essential and apposite to refer to the relevant provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University Act, 1963.
10. The Andhra Pradesh State Legislature enacted the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University Act, 1963, and the said Legislation received the assent of His Excellency the Governor on 27.12.1963 and the same was published on 30.12.1963. The said Legislation came into effect on 04.05.1964. According to Section 2(n) of the Act, the term 'Teacher' includes a professor, reader, lecturer or other person appointed or recognized by the University for the purpose of imparting instruction or conducting and guiding research or extension programmes, and any person declared by the statutes to be a teacher. Section 3 of the Act deals with 'the University' and according to sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, there shall be constituted in, and for, the State of Andhra Pradesh a University by the name of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University, which shall consist of a Chancellor, a Vice Chancellor, a Board of Management and an 10 Academic Council. Section 8 of the Act deals with the power of the Government to cause inspection into the affairs and properties of the University. According to Section 10 of the Act, His Excellency the Governor of Andhra Pradesh shall be the Chancellor of the University. Section 11 deals with the Vice Chancellor and according to sub-section (1) of Section 11, the Vice Chancellor shall be a whole time officer and shall be appointed by the Chancellor for a period of three years and the same can be extended for another term of three years. According to sub-section (6) of Section 11, if the post of Vice-Chancellor falls permanently vacant either by resignation or otherwise, such vacancy needs to be filled up by the Chancellor in accordance with Section 11(1). Sub-section (7) of Section 11 empowers the Chancellor to remove the Vice-Chancellor. Section 11(7) of the Act reads as under:
"Section 11(7): If, in the opinion of the Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor willfully omits or refused to carry out the provisions of this Act or abuses the powers vested in him and if it appears to the Chancellor that the continuance of the Vice-Chancellor in office is detrimental to the interests of the university, the Chancellor may by order, remove the Vice-Chancellor, after giving him an opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him."11
11. While referring to the provisions of Section 11 of the Act, in general, and sub-section (7) of Section 11 in particular, the learned Senior Counsel emphatically contends that the Chancellor, His Excellency the Governor alone is conferred with the power of taking action against the Vice-Chancellor and the State Government has absolutely no role in dealing with the said aspect. As mentioned supra, the learned Additional Advocate General seeks to sustain his argument against the said contention of the learned Senior Counsel Sri M.S.Prasad that the aspect of taking disciplinary action against the Vice Chancellor under sub-section (7) of Section 11 of the Act is entirely distinct and different, and the power of the State Government to cause inspection or enquiry into the affairs and properties as stipulated under Section 8 of the Act is different and independent and cannot be curtailed by giving such an interpretation. In the instant case, as observed supra, the office of His Excellency the Governor, vide letter No.3322/A3/S/2018 dated 04.10.2018, while forwarding the complaint dated 22.09.2018 received from the All India Central/PSUs and State Government, Scheduled Tribe Employees Welfare Association requested the Special Chief Secretary to Government, Agriculture and Cooperation Department, requested to take action as deemed fit. Obviously, in pursuance of the same and the subsequent complaints dated 01.06.2019, the State Government initiated the enquiry. 12
12. A common and conjoint reading of Section 3 of the Act, which deals with the term 'University', which includes the Vice-Chancellor also and Section 8 of the Act which empowers the State Government to cause inspection into the affairs and the properties of the University and to cause enquiry in respect of the matters connected therewith, demonstrates, in clear and vivid terms, that the State Government can look into the affairs and cause enquiry into the affairs of the University and the properties and the matters connected therewith. At the same time, it is no doubt true that His Excellency the Governor alone is the disciplinary authority as per Section 11(7) of the Act.
13. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the enquiry was ordered on the basis of anonymous and pseudonymous complaints, is also not sustainable having regard to the information available before this Court and the complaints which contain the signatures. During the course of verification and enquiry, if it is found that they are not genuine, the verifying authority can as well ignore the same. At this stage, the genuineness or otherwise of the same cannot be made the subject matter for scrutiny in the present Writ Petition.
14. In this context, it needs to be clarified that the findings in the enquiry, if any, recorded by the verifying 13 authority, incidentally against the petitioner herein cannot be the sole foundation or basis for action under Section 11(7) of the Act. It is also further clarified that the instant enquiry and the report, if any to be submitted, cannot be the sole basis for the authority under Section 11(7) of the Act to take disciplinary action. If His Excellency the Governor finds that there is valuable material on record, it is always open to take action by His Excellency the Governor but not the State Government, having regard to the provisions of the Act. It is also significant to note that it is also not the claim of the State Government that it is competent to take disciplinary action against the petitioner herein. At the same time, there cannot be any restrictions on the State Government to enquire into the affairs of the University.
15. Coming to the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner - the principles laid down in the said judgments, in the considered opinion of this Court, would not render any assistance to the petitioner herein.
16. In view of the above reasons and the findings recorded, the impugned enquiry initiated cannot be faulted, and at the same time, it needs to be clarified that His Excellency the Governor, who is Chancellor of the University, alone is the disciplinary authority who is competent to take action under Section 11(7) of the Act. It is also further clarified that the 14 impugned enquiry and the report, if any is submitted in future, cannot be the sole basis for His Excellency the Governor to take disciplinary action under Section 11(7) of the Act.
17. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petition.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
___________________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J Date: 21.12.2019 Siva/DRK 15 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.9925 of 2019 Date: 21.12.2019 siva