N.D.Rajaratnam Son Of Danappa v. The Commissioner of Collegiate Education, A.P.Hyderabad & Ors.

The petitioner joined the service of the 3rd respondent college as a Reading Room Assistant in 1963. Later worked as Library Boy and thereafter as an Attender. As a Library Attender his services were regularized in 1966. Thereafter he claims to have pursued a course of study and obtained a certificate in Library Science. In April 1970 he submitted the said certificate to the respondents 2 and 3 claiming promotion as an Assistant Librarian. By an order dt. 3.9.1970 the 3rd respondent issued the order promoting the petitioner as Assistant Librarian “in view of his having improved his qualifications”, w.e.f. 1.9.1970. During 1973 the petitioner acquired the qualification of B.A. By an order dated 1.9.1972 of the 3rd respondent, the petitioner was regularized in the category of Assistant Librarian. In 1980, the petitioner acquired the qualification of Bachelor in Library Information Science from the A.P. Open University. Through a memo dated 15.5.198889 issued to the petitioner a query was raised as to the validity of the certificate of Library Science produced by the petitioner for claiming and obtaining promotion as Asst. Librarian. Since 1989 the pay of the petitioner in the category of Asst. Librarian was stopped. He thereupon filed W.P.No. 15604 of 1989 challenging the enquiry initiated into the validity of the certificate produced by the petitioner and another W.P.No. 30620 of 1998 to consider his case for further promotion as a Librarian.

Both the above writ petitions were disposed of by a common order of a learned single Judge of this court dt. 15.12.1999. This court had granted an ad interim direction for payment of salary to the petitioner in the category of Asst. Librarian. In the final disposal of the writ petitions this court directed the respondents to proceed with the enquiry with regard to the genuineness of the certificate submitted by the petitioner in 1970 and to complete the same within three months. It was further ordered that release of regular increments claimed by the petitioner would be subject to the result of such enquiry. The other claim with regard to promotion as Librarian was declined on the ground that his very qualification for appointment as Asst. Librarian was pending enquiry. Thereafter the 1st respondent initiated an enquiry into the validity of the certificate produced by the petitioner for obtaining promotion as an Asst.

Librarian. It would appear that the 1st respondent issued a show cause noticed to the petitioner on 19.7.2000 to explain within the stipulated time why further consequent action be not taken for obtaining promotion as an Asst. Librarian without having a certificate issued by an Institute recognized by the Osmania University and permitted by the Government. By his response dt. 14.8.2000 the petitioner spelt out in detail that he had produced whatever certificate he had obtained and that from 1970 for a long period of years and nearly 2 decades no action was taken against his promotion nor was any query raised as to the validity of the certificate produced by the petitioner and that it is not fair that after two decades a question as to the petitioner’s lack of qualification should be raked up. As merely three decades had passed by then (1970-2000) no further action need be taken, was the concluding plea of the petitioner.

Thereafter by the order dt.21.8.2001 the 1st respondent concluded that the certificate of Library Science produced by the petitioner was not a genuine and valid certificate and therefore the petitioner was disentitled to hold or continue in the post of the Asst. Librarian. Consequently the 1st respondent directed the 3rd respondent to remove the petitioner from service after issuing appropriate notice under the A.P. Education Act 1982 (‘the Act’) and send compliance. The 3rd respondent by the impugned order dt 25.9.2001 removed the petitioner from service with immediate effect solely on the basis of the order of the 1st respondent dt 21.8.2001 and conveniently omitted to issue the notice as is required under the provisions of the Act. Sec.79 of the Act enables an order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or suspension of employees of private institutions. The petitioner categorically asserts and the 3rd respondent does not deny that no such notice or opportunity was issued by the 3rd respondent before issuing the order dt 25.9.2001.

The 3rd respondent therefore failed to comply with the statutory requirement despite being sensitized by the 1st respondent as to the existence of such a statutory obligation. Sub-sec. (5) of Sec.79 of the Act obligates the management of a private educational institution, before imposing any penalty other than the one specified in sub-sec. (1), to inform the employee concerned, in writing, of the allegations on which action is proposed to be taken and give him an opportunity of making a representation, though without the requirement of holding an oral inquiry. From the contextual juxtaposition of sub-sec. (1) and sub-sec. (5) of Sec.79, interpreted consistent with established principles of administrative procedure, the conclusion is irresistible that before taking recourse to the imposition of any of the major penalties like dismissal, removal or reduction in rank a fair and reasonable opportunity should be afforded to an employee to meet the allegations on the basis of which any of the major penalties are proposed to be inflicted.

Even if sub-sec. (1) is silent on the extent or plenitude of opportunity to be provided, since the 3rd respondent is an aided educational institution, aided by grant-in-aid from the State, the 3rd respondent is a public persona and is therefore required to act in consonance with the equality injunctions of Art.14 of the Constitution, which enjoin that no pejorative action be taken without compliance with principles of natural justice. It is a well settled principle of administrative law vide Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India ( [1] ) and Swadeshi Cotton Mills vs Union of India ( [2] ) that even where a Statute is silent principles of natural justice are impregnated into that silence as a condition of constitutional interpretation of a statutory provision. In any view of the matter the petitioner was entitled to as a corollary of the 3rd respondent’s obligation to a notice or opportunity before being subjected to the infliction of the punishment of removal from service.

Since there is an admitted and uncontested failure by the 3rd respondent in this regard, the order of the 3rd respondent dt 25.9.2001 is void and unenforceable and is so declared. The writ petition is accordingly allowed quashing the order of the 3rd respondent dt 25.9.2001. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits consequent of such declaration of invalidity of the 3rd respondent’s order dated 25.9.2001. There shall however be no order as to costs.

17.01.2008 --------------------------- Pvsn/Tsnr Justice G.Raghuram [1] [2] AIR 1978 SC 587 AIR 1981 SC 818