IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 12041 OF 2012 Between: P. Pratap, S/o Sri Ramamurhty Service PET in A.S. High School Jagarlamudi Village, Yaddanapudi Mandal, Prakasam District. ...Petitioner AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government Education (SE-PS I) Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2. Commissioner and Director of School Education Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3. Regional Joint Director of School Education Guntur. 4. District Educational Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District. 5. Correspondent A.S. High School, Jagarlamudi Village, Yaddanapudi Mandal, Prakasam District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the proceedings in memo No. 17657/SE-PS.1/A2/2011 dt. 23.11.2011 issued by the 1 respondent, consequential order in Rc. No. 3678/(B3)A5/2010, dt. 13.12.2011 issued by 3'^'^ respondent and also further consequential order one St in Rc. No. SPI3/PP/2010, dt. 23.12.2011 issued by 5*^ respondent, thereby imposing revised punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect in the place of already imposed punishment of stoppage of annual increment without cumulative effect, as illegal, irregular, irrational one 4 without jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice, provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1989 and rules framed there under and offends articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently quash such orders and pass 10 I.A. NO: 2 OF 2012fWPMP. NO: 15132 OF 2012) Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of orders in memo No. 17657/SE-PS.1/A2/2011, dt.23.11.2011 issued by the 1®‘ respondent: Consequential order in Rc. No. 3678/(B3)A5/2010, dt. 13.12.2011 issued by 3’’'^ respondent and also further consequential order in Rc. No. Sp13/PP/2010, dt. 23.12.2011 issued by 5^^ respondent, pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondents: SRI NARAM NAGESWARA RAO The Court made the following order: APHC010581682012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.12041 OF 2012 Between: ...Petitioner P.Pratap AND State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary To Government, Education (SE-PS.1) Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad And four others. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner; Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana Counsel for the Respondents: 1. Ld. Govt. Pleader for School Education 2. Sri Naram Nageswara Rao The Court made the following order: 1. The petitioner is challenging the proceedings, dated respondent revised the punishment as stoppage of one increment with cumulative th 23,12.2011, whereby the 5 -2- W.P. No.12041 of 2012 V effect from the initial proposed punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the complaint of one School Assistant, the 5"^ respondent conducted an enquiry against the conduct of the petitioner within the school premises. A show cause notice, dated 03.12.2010, was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to explain as to why legal steps should not be taken for attending the school duties on 17.08.2010 under the influence of alcohol. The petitioner admitted his mistake and sought an excuse. On such admission, the 5'*^ respondent imposed the punishment, under the proceedings dated 22.12.2010, withholding of one annual increment without cumulative effect. The School Assistant again approached the 3^^ respondent and the 3'^'^ respondent issued the proceedings dated 13.12.2011 directing the 5^^ respondent to review the punishment. The impugned proceedings dated 23.12.2011 are passed by the 5^^ respondent modifying the initial punishment. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned proceedings, dt.23.12.2011 are passed in V, -3- W.P. No.12041 of 2012 pursuance of the directions of the 3'^'^ respondent under the proceedings dated 13.12.2011. 4. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court, vide order, dt.24.04.2012, had suspended the impugned proceedings dt.23.12.2011 till further orders. 5. The respondents filed a detailed counter. The learned Government Pleader for school education submitted that the Government is competent to interfere with the punishment as per Section 90(1) of A.P. Education Act 1992 and that it is within the power of Government to examine the record of educational institution or any authority, officer or person in respect of any administrative or quasi-judicial decision or order, not being a proceeding in respect of which a reference to an arbitrator or an appeal to the High Court is provided, to satisfy themselves as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed therein. 6. It is further submitted by the learned Government Pleader for school education that the petitioner has committed gross misconduct by coming to the school in a drunken condition and also physically assaulted a craft teacher. It is also alleged -4- W.P. No.12041 of 2012 that the petitioner also harassed one math teacher and used filthy language against her in the presence of students. Considering all these, the respondent has directed the 5^^ respondent to impose a serious punishment, accordingly, the impugned proceedings are passed, and as such, the same need not be set aside as the petitioner was imposed with the punishment for which he deserved. Consideration of the Court: 7. The petitioner was alleged to have attended the school duties 17.08.2010 by consuming alcohol. on However, an explanation was sought from the petitioner on 06.12.2010. The petitioner admitted his mistake and sought an excuse. The 5'^^ respondent has considered the issue and passed an order dated 22.12.2010 and imposed the punishment deferment to one annual increment without cumulative effect. The respondent issued the proceedings dated 13.12.2011 directing the 5*^ respondent to impose a major penalty on the petitioner. The 3'*^ respondent could not have issued such directions without considering the facts. A direction to the 5‘^ respondent to impose a major penalty against the petitioner would indicate a prejudicial approach. Based on the directions of the third 11 -5- W.P. No.12041 of 2012 respondent, the 5*^ respondent has reviewed the punishment without issuing any notice to the petitioner. The revised punishment of withholding of annual increment with cumulative effect is passed without granting or without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation submit his statement of defence. The said punishment under the impugned proceedings is imposed without conducting any fresh enquiry or without affording any opportunity to the petitioner. As such, the impugned proceedings deserve to be set aside as they are passed without following the principles of natural justice. 'jf or 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the proceedings under challenge. 9. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above witness the Hon’ble Sri Dhiraj Singh Thakur, The Chief Justice on this Wednesday, The Eighth day of January, Two Thousand and Twenty Five. SD/- B CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECtfON OFFICER To, 1 The Principal Secretary to Government, Education (SE-PS I) Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner and Director of School Education Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada. 3. The Regional Joint Director of School Education Guntur. 4. The District Educational Officer Ongole, Prakasam District. 5. The Correspondent A.S. High School, Jagarlamudi Village, Yaddanapudi Mandal, Prakasam District. 6. One CC to Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri Naram Nageswara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] School Education, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 9. Two CD Copies RAM HIGH COURT DATED:08/01/2025 19 FEB 2025 r •> ^ . Curreni ^ecuon ^ .^ifSPATCV^^^ ORDER WP.No.12041 of 2012 ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS