Telangana High Court
WP/21865/1994 of K.Gopinath Vs J.N.T.U.,A.P on 30 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.H.S. ANSARI WRIT PETITION NO : 21865 of 1994 Between: K.Gopinath S/o.Unni Krishan Continuing and Distance Education,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.H.S. ANSARI
WRIT PETITION NO : 21865 of 1994
Between:
K.Gopinath S/o.Unni KrishanContinuing and Distance Education, Jawaharlal Nehru Technoligical UniversityMahaveer Marg, Hyderabad.
..... PETITIONER
AND
1. The J.N.T.U.,A.P., rep.by its RegistrarMahaveer Marg, Hyderabad.2. Sri K.Ramireddy I.A.S.(Retd), Member, Board of Management J.N.T.U.,Mahaveermarg Hyderabad.3. Dr. Vijaykumar, Director, Acadamic and PlanningJ.N.T.U Mahaveer MargHyderabad.
(W.P. against R3 is dismissed for default vide court order dated: 15.12.1999)
.....RESPONDENTS.
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring theaction of the respondent No.1 in appointing the Respondents 2 and 3 as acommittee to enquire and to make recommendations about the action to be initiatedagainst the petitioner and the consequential action of the respondents in issuingcharge-sheet to the petitioner and to proceed with the enquiry in excess of thepowers conferred upon them by the Respondent No.1 in seeking to transfer thepetitioner from Hyderabad to Kakinada by way of punishment in the guise of thecircumstances submitted in the affidavit as illegal, void, arbitrary, discriminatory andwithout power or jurisdiction and consequentially to direct the respondents to refrainfrom taking any further steps pursuant to the appointment of the Respondents 2 and 3 committee.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. M.R.K.CHOWDARYCounsel for the Respondents: Mr.C.Kondandaram The Court made the following :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER:
The petitioner has questioned the action of the respondent University in appointing aCommittee to enquire and to make recommendations about the action to be initiatedagainst the petitioner and the consequent action of the said Committee membersissuing a charge sheet to the petitioner.
From the order of the Registrar, dated 15-11-1994 (page 18 of the material papers), itwould appear that the petitioner made a representation to the Chancellor makingallegations against the University, and the Vice-Chancellor constituted an enquirycommittee consisting of respondents 2 and 3. The direction to the said committeewas the following:
“The Committee shall look into the allegations made by him and recommendsuitable action to be taken by the University.
The Committee shall submit its recommendations at the earliest.”
It appears that the Committee by its Proceedings dated 26-11-1994 framed certaincharges. It is the contention of the petitioner as urged by the learned counsel for thepetitioner that the said committee has no power or jurisdiction to frame charges. Itwas merely required to look into the allegations and make recommendations as tosuitable action to be taken by the University.
I find substantial force in the said contention of the learned counsel for thepetitioner. Furthermore, I find from the counter affidavit of the University thatsubsequent to the filing of the instant writ petition, the respondent Universityconstituted a fact-finding committee with two members who have submitted their report.
In the circumstances, I am of the view that the appointment of respondents 2 and 3as enquiry committee and the consequential action taken by them in issuing thecharge sheet warrants to be quashed and set aside. It is accordingly set aside.
This order, however, shall not preclude the respondent University from initiatingsuch action or proceedings as may be open to them at law.
The writ petition stands allowed accordingly.
____________________________
(M.H.S.ANSARI, J.)
30[th] December 2004.
ARS
To
1. The Registrar, J.N.T.U., A.P., Mahaveer Marg, Hyderabad.2.Two CD copies.