APHC010313392025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 15613/2025 Between: 1.CSR SARMA COLLEGE,, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY AND CORRESPONDENT, SHRI KARAVADI RAGHAVA RAO, 37-3-70, SEETHARAMAPURAM, NEARZAKRAIAH HOSPITAL, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523001, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2.THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COUNCIL OF HIGHER EDUCATION APSCHE, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, 3RD, 4TH, 5TH FLOORS, NEELADRI TOWERS, SRI RAM NAGAR, 6TH BATTALION ROAD, ATMAKUR (V), MANGALAGIRI (M), GUNTUR - 522 503. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION The Court made the following: 2 ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Smt.K.Radhika, Ld. Standing Counsel for Higher Education. 2. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following prayer: “Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Proceedings bearing Proceedings No.APSCHE/AC-105-ANU-CSRS/less than 25% admns/2025 dated 19.06.2025, issued by the 2nd respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, contrary to Section 21 of the AP Education Act, 1982, apart from being violative of principles of natural justice, consequently direct the respondents not to take any coercive action against the petitioner institution including withdrawal of permission or closure of courses and, to pass such other and further order or orders” 3. The above prayer would indicate that the Writ Petitioner is challenging the Proceedings dated 19.06.2025 issued by the Respondent No.2 (Ex.P1). 4. The Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Ld. Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, has taken the Court through the contents of the Impugned Proceedings and contends that the said Impugned Proceedings has been issued without specific reference to the provision of law. He further submits that the Respondent No.2 does not have the jurisdiction to issue such Proceedings and is not empowered to conduct the enquiry in question. 5. This Court has perused the Impugned Proceedings. On the face of it, the Impugned Proceedings indicate that the Respondent No.2 has initiated an enquiry under Section 7(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982. 6. As part of this enquiry, the Writ Petitioner was directed to submit certain material and appear before the Review Committee constituted by APSCHE on 3 02.07.2025. In addition, the Respondent No.2 directed the Writ Petitioner to submit a detailed written justification for poor admissions and also furnish original documents in support of the institutional credentials etc. This direction required submission of the aforementioned documents on or before 30.06.2025. 7. On a close scrutiny of the impugned Proceeding, prima facie, it appears to this Court that the impugned Proceeding is in the nature of a preliminary enquiry for the purpose of fact-finding and that the Official Respondents have thought it prudent to verify the record and also seek necessary Explanation from the Writ Petitioner herein and that such preliminary enquiries are permissible in law since such enquiries are informal in nature. In the case of preliminary enquiries, it is essentially not required for an Authority to trace-out a statutory power for the conduct of a preliminary enquiry. 8. The Division Bench of this Court in Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Medak and Mohd. Ismail and another; 1996 (4) A.L.T. 502 (DB), while holding that it is an aspect of good administration to hold preliminary enquiry to satisfy itself whether there is a prima facie case to proceed against the delinquent, held as under: “10. Preliminary enquiry is neither a judicial nor a quasi- judicial act; it is purely an administrative action. The purpose of holding departmental enquiry is to decide whether the disciplinary action should or should not be taken against a delinquent employee. The said enquiry results in either punishment or exoneration of the employee concerned. On the other hand, the purpose of a preliminary enquiry is to find out whether there is sufficient justification for embarking on a full-fledged departmental enquiry against a particular employee. Such a preliminary enquiry does not result either in exoneration or punishment, but it merely guides the employer whether to proceed against a particular employee or not, and its purpose is to see whether a prima facie case is made out for issuing a chargesheet calling for explanation. In other words, the purpose of the preliminary enquiry is for the personal satisfaction of the disciplinary authority to enable him to come to a decision whether the matter should be dropped or any further action should be taken. It is also 4 relevant to note that there is no obligation on the part of the disciplinary authority to disclose the materials and evidence collected in the course of the preliminary enquiry to the delinquent. There is also no obligation cast on the disciplinary authority to disclose its findings in the preliminary enquiry. But, the satisfaction arrived at and the materials and the evidence collected in the preliminary enquiry may be a basis for initiating departmental enquiry and if the disciplinary authority wants to make use of the materials and evidence collected in the preliminary enquiry against the delinquent in the departmental enquiry, then, law requires that such materials and evidence should be disclosed to the delinquent and the delinquent should be given a reasonable opportunity to have his say regarding those materials.” 9. In the case of Chowtupalli Satyanarayana Vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Kowur, W.G. Dist. & Ors.; 1998 SCC Online AP 475: (1998) 5 ALT 521, Ld. Single Judge of this Court held as under: “7. Preliminary enquiries are quite often resorted to by the administrative and statutory authorities before they initiate adverse proceedings against a person or an employee, and such course of action is not only healthy aspect of good governance but also for the benefit of the persons against whom adverse actions have to be taken. An action taken in ignorance of full facts may not only fail to correct the given situation, but may even create more problems. The administrators and statutory authorities can initiate effective remedial measures to deal with specific problems only when they are in full possession of the relevant information, facts and figures and to collect these, enquiries and investigations become necessary. Investigations and enquiries are resorted for various purposes, such as rule making, law enforcement, adjudication of disputes, supervision, licensing, collecting information and “for purposes no more specific than illuminating obscure areas to find out what if anything should be done” to borrow from Davis, I Administrative Law Treatise (1958). 8. Now let me advert to the facts of the present case. It is true that before the impugned notice was issued, a preliminary enquiry was held on the allegations levelled against the petitioner by the Secretary of the Society and the impugned show cause notice refers to the report submitted by the Co-operative Sub-Registrar. As already pointed out supra, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies was under no obligation to refer the matter to the Co-operative Sub-Registrar for enquiry, and if he were to issue the impugned show cause notice without any preliminary enquiry, 5 such notice would have been inconformity with the provisions of Rule 24(3). The Deputy Registrar ordered the preliminary enquiry in order to satisfy himself whether the allegations made by the Secretary are justified and correct before he could take steps under Rule 24(3) of the Rules, and the procedure adopted by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies is in conformity with the opinion expressed by the Courts. There is no legal obligation cast on the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies that he should himself conduct the preliminary enquiry. It is well settled that a statutory authority vested with a power to take adverse action against a person or employee can cause a preliminary enquiry into the allegations or complaints received against a person by taking aid and assistance of his subordinate officials unless in a given case the statute mandates that even the preliminary enquiry should be held by the authority itself. There is in such statutory restriction in the present case. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the action of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies in causing preliminary enquiry through the second respondent co- operative Sub-Registrar and that fact itself is not a vitiating factor to annul the impugned show cause notice issued under Rule 24(3) of the Rules.” 10. In view of the clear legal position, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned Notice, which is being treated as a preliminary Notice. Needless to state that if the Official Respondents, after conducting the preliminary enquiry, are of the opinion that there is a requirement to initiate any punitive of action against the Writ Petitioner, the Respondent Authorities shall frame issues in respect of the same in accordance with law and communicate the same to the Writ Petitioner and call for an Explanation before passing any adverse order against the Writ Petitioner. 11. However, it is stated that the Impugned Proceedings, dated 19.06.2025, has been received by the Petitioner only on 24.06.2025. Therefore, the time granted to the petitioner to procure and submit all the documents by 30.06.2025 appears impractical. In this view of the matter, the time granted to the Petitioner to submit all the documents by 30.06.2025 is extended by another two weeks from today. The Petitioner is directed to submit all the 6 relevant documents on or before 14.07.2025. Thereafter, the Respondent No.2 is directed to fix a date for the enquiry. 12. With the above observations and directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 13. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Date: 27.06.2025 Note: Issue C.C. by 30.06.2025. LR copy to be marked. B/o.S D P/M N R 7 21 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 15613 OF 2025 27.06.2025 Note: Issue C.C. by 30.06.2025. LR copy to be marked. B/o.S D P/M N R