Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
C. Subbarayudu vs Institution Of Lokayukta And ... on 25 July, 2001
ORDER S.R Nayak, J.
1. The petitioner who held the office of the Registrar at the relevant point of time in Nagarjuna University situated in Guntur District, 4th respondent herein has filed this writ petition for mandamus declaring the order dated 26-6-1996 passed by the learned Upa-Lokayukta of the Andhra Pradesh State, Hyderabad, in Complaint No.1639 of 1992 as illegal and void and to set aside the same and for consequential direction to declare the proceedings of the Executive Council of the Nagarjuna University, the 2nd respondent herein dated 2-8-1996 in No.NU/TS/Estt/P/1/96 relieving him from the post of Principal of the University College, as illegal and void and to grant such other orders or reliefs just and necessary as this Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The background facts leading to the filing of this writ petition be noted first briefly as under; The petitioner at the relevant point of time held the substantive post of Professor in Economics in the Nagarjuna University and while he was serving as Professor of Economics, he was appointed as Registrar of the University and he served as such from 26-4-1990 to 4-11-1991. When he was serving as Registrar, a petition dated 26-12-1992 of one K. Ramanjaneyulu, State General Secretary, All India Students Federation (AISF), Andhra Pradesh State Council, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad, addressed to the Lok Ayukta of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad routed through a covering letter dated 26-11-1992 of Puvvada Nageswara Rao, Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly, was received by the office of the Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta of Andhra Pradesh State, Hyderabad, the 1st respondent herein. It appears that the said petition was also sent to the Chief Minister, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. The petition of Sri K. Ramanjaneyulu, State General Secretary of All India Students Federation, Andhra Pradesh State Government reads:
"All India Students Federation, A.P. State Council, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad Dated: 26-11-1992.
To The Lokayukta, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
Demand for appointing a single Judge Committee to investigate malpractices committed by Prof. C. Subbarayudu, Department of Economics, Nagarjuna University. He sufficiently contributed in spoiling the prestige of different Universities through his corrupt, caste based and harassing practices by misusing the administrative position generously offered by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The following will support the above :
1. The athletic association of Sri Krishnadevaraya University submitted a memorandum on 1-10-1989 to His Excellency the Governor of Andhra Pradesh regarding the corruption charges against Prof. C. Subbarayudu, the then Executive Council Member, copies of the charges were sent to the then Chief Minister and Education Minister. No action was taken (copy of the memorandum is enclosed). His corruption is also supported (Evidence enclosed).
2. During 1985-90 he was the only Professor nominated to three Executive Councils of three different Universities (NU, SVU, SKDU). Is he such a great teacher or researcher?
It only speaks his capacity for wirepulling.
3. During 1987 - who was appointed to look after the legal matters of Nagarjuna University. In a single year he claimed TA bills of huge amounts, and many after a lapse of six months.
4. During his tenure as a Chief Warden of Nagarjuna University large financial excess were committed by him. A single dinner worth Rs.240/-per student (the cost was unimaginable in those days) was organised by him. He has huge amounts of unsettled advances till today. The successive Vice-Chancellors are unable to do anything because of his threats of destabilising the administration. His case was referred to Reballo Committee. Nothing has happened till today, though the Committee substituted its report 3 years back.
5. He has been continuously harassing the SC and ST members of the University, be it a teacher or non-teacher or student or even a Vice-Chancellor. During 1989-90, the NUSC, ST Welfare Association submitted a memorandum to the University and Chancellor with allegations of his harassment and misdeeds against SC, ST. Nothing has happened.
6. The Krishnadevaraya University teachers and students filed a case against him in Lokayukta. What happened to it?
7. He almost faced the threat of suspension for his alleged malpractice of lakhs of rupees of Nagarjuna University funds during the sanction of a tender of building the prestigious administrative block, during his tenure as Registrar of Nagarjuna University. A Committee was also appointed to investigate into the matter by Board of Management. What happened to it?
Many more examples of his excesses and malpractices will be presented to the single Judge Committee regarding his activities in the three Universities. I request you to immediately act upon this matter.
Yours faithfully, Sd/-
(K. Ramanjaneyulu) AISF - State General Secretary."
3. The covering letter of Sri Puvvada Nageswara Rao, Leader CPI Group, Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly, dated 26-11-1992 while forwarding the above petition of Sri K. Ramanjaneyulu reads:
'Puvvada Nageswara Rao, MLA Leader, CPI Group, A.P. Legislative Assembly.
Makdoom Bhavan, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad.
Dated: 26-11-1992.
Dear Sri Kotla Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy garu, Herewith I am forwarding a representation given by the All India Students Federation (AISF) against the corruption and malpractices committed by Prof. C. Subba Rayudu, Department of Economics, Nagarjuna University, Guntur. I strongly feel that the corruption charges made against Prof. C. Subba Rayudu, by the students need a careful examination. Hence I request you to entrust this matter to a High Court Judge or to Lokayukta for a thorough probe and strong action against the guilty.
I hope that necessary action will be taken as early as possible and I am eagerly awaiting for your reply and positive reply in this regard. Thanking you, Yours sincerely, Sd/-
(Puvvada Nageswara Rao) MLA To Sri K. Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy, Honourable Chief Minister, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
Copy to:
Lokayukta, Government of Andhra Pradesh."
The 1st respondent after going through the complaint found that except the 7th allegation in the complaint, all other allegations against the petitioner relate to him while working as Professor of Economics in the University. It was found that the 7th allegation related to his conduct while working as Registrar of the University. Professors of Universities are not brought under the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent institution. Only Registrars and Vice-Chancellors of the Universities are brought under the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent institution. Therefore, the 1st respondent institution caused verification/ enquiry in regard to 7th allegation only. The 7th allegation against the petitioner was that he almost faced a threat of suspension for his alleged misappropriation of lakhs of rupees out of the funds of Nagarjuna University for sanctioning the contract of building, i.e., administrative block in the University Campus during his tenure as Registrar. After the preliminary investigation, the report of the investigation cell with the relevant records secured from the University was placed before the 1st respondent institution and it was felt that there is prima facie material for further investigation against the petitioner. Accordingly on 16-9-1994, a notice in Form No. VII was issued to the petitioner under Rule 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta (Investigation Rules, 1984 (for short 'the Rules'), calling upon the petitioner to offer his comments, if any. The petitioner submitted his reply to the notice. On consideration of the reply of the petitioner, the 1st respondent came to the conclusion that there was a need for further investigation against the petitioner, and accordingly, notice in Form No. VIII under Rule 7 of the rules was issued to the petitioner. The plea of the petitioner was recorded in regard to allegation No.7 alone and he denied the said allegation against him. Thereafterwards, a regular enquiry was conducted. In the course of enquiry, on behalf of the complainant one Professor S.V. Krishna Rao was examined as PW1 and as many as 25 documents were marked as Exs. A1 to A25. On behalf of the petitioner, one Sri D. Benjiman Franklin examined as DW1 and the petitioner himself was examined as DW2. No documentary evidence was produced and marked on behalf of the petitioner. The learned Upa-Lokayukta on consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed before him came to the conclusion that the petitioner as the Registrar of Nagarjuna University abused his position to favour the contractor who was awarded the contract of construction of administrative building and in so doing, he was actuated by extraneous consideration and improper motive and therefore he is liable to be punished for his improper conduct. In the premise of this finding, the learned Upa-Lokayukta passed order on 26-6-1996 in Complaint No. 1639/92 recording the above finding, and he recommended for awarding "punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect from his salary as a Professor of the Nagarjuna University and debar him from holding any post of responsibility tike Vice-Chancellor, Registrar, Rectar or Warden, either in Nagarjuna University or in any other University of Andhra Pradesh Government and also debar him from holding any responsible position paid for from the funds of the Andhra Pradesh State Government or the local bodies or the public undertakings belonging to the State Government".
4. The Executive Council of the Nagarjuna University considered the order of the learned Upa-Lokayukta and the recommendation made by him and by its resolution dated 2-8-1996 resolved to relieve the petitioner who at that point of time was serving as Principal of the University College with immediate effect. In terms of the said resolution of the Executive Committee of the University, the Registrar in-charge issued proceedings No. NU/TS/Estt/P/l/96, dated 2-8-1996 relieving the petitioner as Principal of the University College with immediate effect from the afternoon of 2-8-1996 and directing the petitioner to handover the charge of the Principal, University College to one Professor V.L. Narasimham, Department of Statistics. Hence, this writ petition assailing the validity of the order of the learned Upa-Lokayukta dated 26-6-1996 and also the proceedings of the Nagarjuna University dated 2-8-1996 relieving the petitioner from the post of Principal, University College.
5. On behalf of the 1st respondent institution, counter-affidavit is filed sworn to by the Registrar of the 1st respondent institution opposing the writ petition. The Executive Council of the Nagarjuna University, the 2nd respondent herein and the Vice-Chancellor of the Nagarjuna University, the 3rd respondent have also filed a common counter-affidavit opposing the writ petition.
6. We have heard Sri Movva Chandrasekhar Rao, learned senior Counsel who appeared for the petitioner and Sri Koka Raghavara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the Nagarjuna University and Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent institution.
7. Sri M. Chandrasekhar Rao, learned Counsel, firstly, contended that the impugned order of the learned Upa-Lokayukta is one without jurisdiction. The learned Counsel would point out that the complaint of the State General Secretary, AISF was forwarded by Sri Puvvada Nageswara Rao, MLA, leader, CPI Group, Andhra Pradesh Stale Legislative Assembly, with a request to the Chief Minister and the 1st respondent institution to conduct investigation and enquiry on the alleged malpractices on the part of the petitioner and to punish the guilty, and therefore, the complaint forwarded by the MLA should be treated as the one at the behest of MLA, and if it is so treated, only Lokayukta has jurisdiction to entertain such complaint in terms of Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta Act, 1983 (for short 'the Act'). Secondly, the learned Counsel would contend that whereas the learned Upa-Lokayukta recommended for denial of two increments to the petitioner with cumulative effect in his order, quite curiously, the University chose to relieve the petitioner from the post of Principal of University College, and that action of the University tantamounts to termination of the services of the petitioner as Principal, and therefore, the action of the University in relieving the petitioner from the post of Principal is quite contrary to the recommendation made by the learned Upa-Lokayukta. Thirdly, the learned Counsel would contend that only the Vice-Chancellor of the Nagarjuna University is competent authority to pass the impugned order dated 2-8-1996 and not the Executive Council of the University and on that count also, the impugned order of the Executive Council dated 2-8-1996 should be held to be invalid and without authority of law. Fourthly, the learned Counsel would contend that the learned Upa-Lokayukta having noticed that the complainant lost interest in prosecuting the complaint and did not attend the enquiry as could be seen from para (4) of the order, seriously erred in continuing the enquiry and passing the impugned order inasmuch as the learned Upa-Lokayukta lacks power to investigate into the complaint suo motu. Lastly, the learned senior Counsel would maintain that the factual findings recorded by the learned Upa-Lokayukta are perverse and they are not based on any substantive evidence. In other words, the learned Counsel would contend that the 7th allegation levelled against the petitioner is not at all substantiated by any acceptable evidence.
8. On the other hand, Sri. Koka Raghava Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the Nagarjuna University and Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar learned Counsel for the 1st respondent institution would contest the correctness of the contentions of the learned senior Counsel for the petitioner and would support the impugned order of the learned Upa-Lokayukta as well as the impugned action of the Nagarjuna University.
9. The contention of Sri M Chandrasekhar Rao, learned senior Counsel that the impugned order of the learned Upa-Lokayukta is one without jurisdiction, and that since the complaint of the State General Secretary, AISF was forwarded by Sri Puvvada Nageswara Rao, MLA, Leader, CPI Group, Andhra Pradesh State Legislative Assembly to the Chief Minister and the 1st respondent institution with a request to conduct investigation and enquiry on the alleged malpractice on the part of the petitioner and to punish the guilty, that complaint should be treated as the one at the behest of MLA and if it is so treated, only Lokayukta has jurisdiction to entertain such complaint in terms of Section 7 of the Act, in our considered opinion is totally mis-conceived. Section 7 of the Act reads:
"7. Mailers which may be investigated by Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta :--(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Lokayukta may investigate any action which is taken by, or with the general or specific approval of, or at the behest of,--
(i) a Minster or a Secretary; or
(ii) a Member of either House of the State Legislature; or
(iii) a Mayor of the Municipal Corporation constituted by or under the relevant law for the time being in force; or
(iv) any other public servant, belonging to such class or section of public servants, as may be notified by the Government in this behalf after consultation with the Lokayukta, in any case where a complaint involving an allegation is made in respect of such action, or such action can be or could have been, in the opinion of the Lokayukta, the subject of an allegation.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Upa-Lokayukta may investigate any action which is taken by, or with the general or specific approval of, any public servant, other than those referred to in sub-section (1), in any case where a complaint involving an allegation is made in respect of such action, or such action can be or could have been, in the opinion of the Upa-Lokayukta, the subject of an allegation.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (2), the Lokayukta may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, investigate any allegation in respect of an action which may be investigated by the Upa-Lokayukta under that subsection, whether or not complaint has been made to the Lokayukta in respect of such action.
(4) Where two or more Upa-Lokayuktas are appointed under this Act, the Lokayukta may, by general or special order, assign to each of them matters which may be investigated by them under this Act:
Provided that no investigation made by the Upa-Lokayukta under this Act and no action taken or thing done by him in respect of such investigation shall be called in question on the ground only that such investigation relates to a matter which is not assigned to him by such order". It is true that as per sub-section (1) of Section 7, only the Lokayukta will have jurisdiction to investigate any action which is taken by, or with the general or specific approval of, or at the behest of, the officers of public servants specified in that subsection. Firstly, the complaint, which was investigated by the learned Upa-Lokayukta in this case is not a complaint of the Member of a State Legislature; it was a complaint of the General Secretary, AISF, A.P. State Council, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad, and the MLA only acted as a post-box in forwarding the complaint to the Chief Minister and the 1st respondent institution. Secondly and more importantly, it is relevant to notice that the action of the petitioner herein in respect of which the complaint was made by the General Secretary, AISF, A.P. State Council, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad, is not an action of the Member of the Legislature nor an action taken by the petitioner at the behest of the Member of the State Legislature. Therefore, the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act have no application to the facts of this case, and therefore, the 1st contention of the learned senior Counsel is not well founded, and accordingly, we reject that contention.
10. The 2nd contention that the action of the respondent in relieving the petitioner from the post of Principal of University College tantamount to termination of his services and therefore the University went beyond the recommendation made by the learned Upa-Lokayukta is again not well founded. As already pointed out supra, when the petitioner was appointed as Registrar of the Nagarguna University, was holding substantive post of Professor of Economics. By the time the learned Upa-Lokayukta made the impugned order on 26-6-1996, the petitioner was appointed as the Principal of the University College. As on that date also, the petitioner was holding substantive post of Professor of Economics. Although the learned Upa-Lokayukta in his order dated 26-6-1996 has recommended to impose punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and to debar the petitioner from holding any post of responsibility like Vice-Chancellor, Registrar, Rectar or Warden, the University in its wisdom did not impose the penalty of denial of two increments with cumulative effect, and on the other hand, thought it appropriate and just to relieve the petitioner from the responsible position of the Principal of the University College. By no stretch of imagination, it could be said that the order passed by the University on 2-8-1996 relieving the petitioner from the post of Principal of the University College tantamounts to termination of his services. In fact it is a matter of record that even after his relief as the Principal of the University College, he continued to be Professor of Economics in the service of the University and he retired from service only when he attained the age of superannuation. The University did not go beyond the recommendation of the learned Upa-Lokayukta. On the other hand, the recommendation of the learned Upa-Lokayukta is not implemented by the University in totality. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have any grievance on that count and consequently the 2nd contention also fails.
11. The 3rd contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that under regulations, the Vice-Chancellor of the University alone is competent to pass the impugned order dated 2-8-1996 relieving the petitioner from the pot of Principal of the University College for that action, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, tantamounts to termination of the service of the petitioner from the post of Registrar, and not the Executive Council of the University, is again based on an apparent misconception of the whole issue and the law. This contention is built up on the assumption that when the impugned order was passed by the Executive Council of the University on 2-8-1996, the petitioner should be deemed to have held the post of Registrar in the University. As earlier pointed out that as on 2-8-1996, the petitioner was no longer the Registrar of the University, but he was functioning as Principal of the University College. There is no controversy that if the petitioner was working as Principal of the University College as on 2-8-1996, the Executive Council of the University had undoubtedly the power under the regulations to pass an order of the nature of the impugned order and also the power to terminate the services of a Principal of a University College, though it has done in the case of the petitioner.
12. The 4th contention of the learned Counsel again is not well founded. Firstly, the learned Upa-Lokayukta conducted the investigation of the enquiry against the petitioner not suo motu, but on the basis of a complaint lodged by the State General Secretary, AISF. Simply because in the course of the enquiry, the complainant did not evince interest in prosecuting the complaint as observed by the learned Upa-Lokayukta in his order, it cannot be said the enquiry initiated by the learned Upa-Lokayukta should be treated as a suo motu enquiry. Alternatively, it is pertinent to note that as a principle, it can be said that the Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta have power to take suo motu action in respect of any "action" as defined under Section 2-A of the Act. This position is well settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rama Rao v. Lokayukta, .
13. This takes us to the last contention of the learned Counsel that the factual findings recorded by the learned Upa-Lokayukta are perverse and that they are not based on any substantive evidence. In this connection, the learned Counsel would highlight that the petitioner did not commit any irregularity or illegality in placing the negotiated terms arrived at by the Sub-Committee of the Building Committee before the Vice-Chancellor, instead of placing of the same either before the Building Committee constituted by the Vice-Chancellor himself under the UGC Regulations or before the Executive Council of the University. On the other hand, the petitioner-Registrar was under a legal obligation to place the said file before the Vice-Chancellor to seek further instruction in the matter to place before the Building Committee or the Executive Council. Subsection (1) of Section 12 provides that, if, after investigation of any allegation in respect of any action under the Act, the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta is satisfied that such allegation is substantiated either wholly or partly, he shall by a report in writing, communicate his findings and recommendations along with the relevant documents, materials or other evidence to the competent authority. Drawing our attention to the above provision of subsection (1) of Section 12 of the Act, Sri Movva Chandrasekhar Rao, would maintain that the allegations levelled against the petitioner should be substantiated by adducing substantial acceptable legal evidence and that has not been done in this case. We have no quarrel with the contention of the learned Counsel as regards the principle stated by him and in fact we agree with him. The question is whether factual findings recorded by the learned Upa-Lokayukta in his order are perverse, in the sense that they are not based on any relevant evidence. This question need not detain us for long. The learned Upa-Lokayukta has threadbare discussed all the attendant circumstances, the previous practices adopted by the Registrar himself in the matter of placing the negotiated terms of contract by the Sub-Committee of the Building Committee before the Executive Council of the University. The order discloses and establishes the following facts : (1) The University Engineer delivered steel and cement to the contractor at the behest of the petitioner even before the contractor entered into a formal written contract on 13-9-1991, (2) the contractor did not deposit a sum of Rs.67,025/- which was required to be deposited in terms of the tender notification, before entering into the agreement. On the other hand, he gave a letter to the petitioner to deduct that amount from the bills that would become payable to him. The petitioner did not place this letter before the Executive Council or the Vice-Chancellor and on the other hand, he simply entered into contract without insisting deposit for Rs. 67,025/-, (3) the petitioner himself has categorically admitted in his evidence that there is no provision under the University Act or statutes or regulations authorising him to dispense with the deposit, (4) the Executive Council of the University had authorised the Building Committee to decide on the single quotation for the construction of the administrative building at 1990-91 rates and accordingly the Building Committee negotiated with the contractor and had passed a resolution dated 3-7-1991 vide Ex.A4 recommending to accept the contract for Rs. 50,70,028-40 ps. This recommendation was rejected by the Executive Council of the University vide its resolution Ex.A6 dated 5-8-1991 and directed the Building Committee to further negotiate with the contractor. Accordingly, the Building Committee constituted a Sub-Committee for negotiating the terms with the contractor and the said Sub-Committee accordingly negotiated the terms and submitted the negotiated terms to the petitioner-Registrar. The petitioner bypassing both the Building Committee and the Executive Council of the University placed the file before the Vice-Chancellor knowing fully well that the Vice-Chancellor would retire the very next day, and obtained his approval. Such an objectionable course was adopted by the petitioner despite the fact that on previous occasion he himself had placed the negotiated terms by the Building Committee before the Executive Council of the University for its approval. There is absolutely no satisfactory explanation from the petitioner for this curious departure, (5) the petitioner lacked integrity and credibility, (6) the petitioner is guilty of an "action" within the meaning of that term defined under clause (a) of Section 2 involving an "allegation" within the meaning of that term as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act and in the established circumstances envisaged in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act, (7) the relevant statutory provisions and the rules and regulations and the statutes framed under the Nagarjuna University Act clearly show that the Executive Council of the University, are redesignated as the Board of Management under the 1991 Act is the competent authority to accept a tender and not the Vice-Chancellor.
14. After going through the well considered lengthy order of the learned Upa-Lokayukta, we are of the considered opinion that all the above findings recorded by the learned Upa-Lokayukta are based on acceptable legal evidence, and therefore, the allegation levelled against the petitioner is substantiated in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Be that as it may, as often said and reiterated by the Apex Court and this Court, that the judicial review is not against a decision as such, but against the decision-making. This Court while reviewing the impugned actions cannot assume the role of an appellate authority or the Court over the impugned decisions. Although Sri Movva Chandrasekhar Rao, learned senior Counsel, with his usual tenacity and incisiveness would dissect each and every finding recorded by the learned Upa-Lokayukta in his attempt to find some or the other flaw, we are afraid that we would be justified in reappreciating the evidence on record and substituting our opinion in place of the opinion formed by the learned Upa-Lokayukta even assuming that two or more opinions could be formed on the basis of the same evidence.
15. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the writ petition with no order as to costs.