High Court · 2012

G.O.Ms.No.194, HE (IE.II-2) Dept. dated 8.10.2007. In pursuance of the orders issued by the Commissioner of Intermediate Education, A.P., Hyderabad, the petitioner who was redeployed and ordered to work on ‘on duty basis’ at Government College Maddur, Warnagal District, was repatriated to his parent college i.e, Vivekananda Junior College, Warnagal vide proceedings Rc.No.1916/A3/V/2007-4 dated 15.11.2007 and the Regional Joint Director of Intermediate Education, Warangal, requested the concerned principals to implement the order. In response to the repatriation orders of the Regional Joint Director of Intermediate Education, Warangal, the Principal of Vivekananda Junior College (aided), Warangal in his letter in Rc.No.390/2007dated

20.11.2007, sought to inform the petitioner, but his whereabouts were not known for implementation of the repatriation orders. It is finally stated that the petitioner remained absent from duties unauthorisedly with effect from 19.08.2005 i.e., more than four years and as per G.O.Ms.No.260 Gen. Adm (Ser.C) Dept dated 4.9.2003 read with G.O.Ms.No.129 dated 12.6.2007, for unauthorized absence exceeding one year, penalty of removal from service shall be imposed on Government employees. With these averments, the writ petition is sought to be dismissed.

5. The Principal of the Vivekananda Junior College, Narasampet Road, Warangal, filed counter affidavits on behalf of respondents 5, 6 and 7. In the counter affidavit it is state that by proceedings dated 21.7.2005 the petitioner was transferred to the Government Junior College, Maddur, Warangal District and consequently, the petitioner joined duty at Government Junior College Maddur, but the actual date of joining by the petitioner, was not communicated by the principle of the Government Junior College, Maddur. The 3rd respondent – District Vocational Education Officer, Warangal, vide proceedings No.10/A1/S.Post/2005-06/463 dated 19.9.2005, informed the respondent no.6 that the Principal Government Junior College, Maddur complained that the petitioner was absconding from his duties from 16.8.2005 on wards and directed to call for his explanation. Accordingly, the 6th respondent – Correspondent, issued memo bearing no.986/S/Post/VJC/2005-06, to the petitioner on 26.9.2006 and the same was received by the petitioner on 1.10.2005, but he did not choose to reply and the same was brought to the notice of the 3rd respondent – District Vocational Officer, Warnagal proceedings Lr.No.1000/s.Post/VJC/2005-06 dated 8.10.2005. As per the instructions, the 6th respondent issued memo dated 20.6.2006, to the petitioner and the same was acknowledge by the petitioner on 21.6.2006, but there was no reply to the petitioner. As there was no reply, the 6th respondent issued charge memo bearing no.1156/S/Post/VJC/2006-07, dated 19.7.2006 to the petitioner, but the same could not be served on the petitioner. Again the final show cause notice bearing no.1230/s.Post/VJC/2006-07 dated 30.10.2006 was issued and this time, the petitioner received even the earlier proceedings and the present proceedings dated

30.10.2006 and 19.7.2006 respectively, and acknowledged the same on 5.11.2006, but did not file any reply. However as per the instructions of the 4th respondent , the petitioner was issued final notice through college attender dated 20.2.2007, but the messenger reported that the petitioner was out of station. With these averments, inter alia, the writ petition was sought to be dismissed.

6. The petitioner filed reply and stated that because of his ill-health, he could not attend duty and that he served for about 21 years, as he was transferred with mala fide intention, sought for quashing of the transfer orders and the consequential orders.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner attend the age of superannuation, but he was not paid even single pie and his pension was also not settled. Relying on the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad, in LAXMI MOHAN SHARMA v. STATE OF U.P. (2011(4) SLR 570), he submitted that the authorities may be directed to settle the pension of the petitioner in accordance with law. The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in SOMESH TIWARI v. UNION OF INDIA (AIR 2009 SC 1399).

8. The Government Pleader for Higher Education and Sri G.Shyam Sunder Rao, Counsel appearing for the respondent no.7, reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavits, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

9. From the above averments, it could be seen that the petitioner, who was working as Junior Assistant in the 6th respondent – Vivekananda Junior College Aided, Narsampet road, Warangal, was redeployed on ‘on duty basis’ to the Government Junior College, Maddur by the impugned proceedings dated 21.7.2007 and the petitioner joined duty and after working for about eight days, he remained absent. The case of the petitioner, is that there are no surplus staff in the 6th respondent – college and he was transferred with mala fide intention. But he could not demonstrate the same based on the material available on record. As per the material available on record, it could be seen that the Government has taken a decision to transfer the surplus staff working in Government/Aided colleges in Warangal District, to the needy colleges. Such policy decision, cannot be interfered with by this court. However, the fact remains that after transfer, he joined at new station and after working for about eight days, he remained absent. As per the counter affidavits, though he was served with notice calling for his explanation, he did not file any reply. In the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent at paragraph no.5 it is categorically stated that in pursuance of the orders of the Commissioner, the Regional Joint Director, by proceedings dated 15.11.2007, requested the principals to repatriate the petitioner to the parent College, but the said proceedings could not be served on the petitioner, as his whereabouts were not know. The material on record shows that the petitioner after transfer to Maddur, worked only for about eight days and thereafter, remained absent without any intimation and in the counter affidavits it is specifically stated that though the petitioner was served with charge memos , the petitioner did not choose to file any reply and the 6th respondent vide his letter dated No.1341/S.Post/VJC/2006-07 dated 7.3.2007 informed the 3rd respondent – District Vocational Educational Officer, Hanmakonda about the final notice issued to the petitioner and it is stated that he is requested to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

10. In view of the facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and moreover, the alleged cause of action arose for the petitioner, when he was transferred during the year 2005 and he filed writ petition in the year 2009 and hence, there are latches on his part. Moreover, as already noticed above, by proceedings dated 15.11.2007, he was sought to be repatriated, but the same could not be implemented, as the whereabouts of the petitioner were not available. In these circumstances, the relief sought for by the petitioner, does not survive and the judgments relied on by the counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

11. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. However, the 3rd respondent, to whom the 6th respondent intimated the action taken by his proceedings in Lr.No.13451/S.Post/.VJC/2006-07 dated 7.3.2007, is directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

12. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. AVS ---------------------------------------- 07—02—2012