1 APHC010301402018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 13714/2018 Between: K. Anjanee Kumar ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. C SUNIL KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer: “…..to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings RC No.2411/(B3)/B4/2014 dated.29- 01-2018 issued by the 3rd Respondent directing the Respondents 4 to 6 to initiate disciplinary proceedings for dismissal and criminal proceedings against the petitioner without providing opportunity to the petitioner further prejudicing the Respondents 4 to 6 to dismiss the petitioner from service is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principle of Natural justice, set aside the same and further direct the 3rd Respondent to re-consider the same by providing opportunity to the petitioner to be heard, consequently direct the Respondents to pay salary 2 to the petitioner from 01-01-2018 for the work done by him and pass other order or orders……” 2. Heard Sri C.Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for School Education, appearing for the respondents 1 to 5. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner worked as a school teacher in an aided school. After 35 years of his service, at the fag end of his service, on the complaint made by one third party by name C.Bala Venkata Reddy, the Regional Joint Director has initiated action on the allegation that he has furnished fake B.Ed. certificate at the time of admission into the school while joining in unaided post. Learned counsel would submit that the order passed by the Regional Joint Director itself speaks about the punishment to be awarded i.e. the dismissal from service and also lodging of a criminal case. In that view, there is no discretion left to the authorities to conduct an independent enquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner has submitted his explanation to the effect that he has approached Ravindra Bharathi Institution, Ongole, Prakasam District, to pursue B.Ed., and also attended the examinations, received certificate from Utkal University. After 35 years of his service, it is found to be a fake one. Without conducting any independent enquiry, simply the authorities followed the order passed by the Regional Joint Director. It is quite violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner was 3 at the verge of his retirement and at the time of this issue, he was dismissed from service. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for School Education would submit that basing on the complaint lodged against the petitioner, the office of the 3rd respondent has requested the petitioner to submit his original B.Ed. certificate along with marks sheet and the same were forwarded to the Deputy Controller of Examinations, Utkal University, Bhuvaneswar, Odisha State, who in turn, has confirmed that the certificate produced by the petitioner is a fake certificate and also informed that no such name and roll number is found in their records. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent has directed the 6th respondent institution to take further action on the petitioner and also directed the respondents 4 and 5 to take appropriate action against the applicant. Consequently, appropriate legal proceedings have been taken by the respondent authorities against the petitioner. In the preliminary enquiry, it is proved that the petitioner has submitted a fake B.Ed. certificate and got appointed as Special Grade Teacher in the year 1983 and subsequently got approved during the year 2001. Thereby, the petitioner has cheated the management as well as the Department by claiming salary from grant-in-aid, which is a huge loss to the Government Exchequer. Hence, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed before the Court, as rightly put by learned counsel for the petitioner, 4 the order passed by the Regional Joint Director itself would speak volumes of pain suffered by the petitioner. The order passed by the Regional Joint Director itself speaks the Regional Joint Director has directed the authorities to dismiss the employee and also lodge the criminal case. Such being the case, conducting independent enquiry is not left to the authorities. The authorities simply followed the order passed by the Regional Joint Director and dismissed the petitioner from service without appreciating his reasons in the explanation. 6. In that view, the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to conduct an enquiry afresh by following governing rules and law and take appropriate decision taking into consideration the service of the petitioner and also examine his case in the perspective that he may be the victim of the circumstances and pass appropriate orders according to law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 11.03.2025 ARR 5 255 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 13714/2018 Dt.11.03.2025 ARR