Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
V Aruna Kumari vs The State Of Ap on 21 December, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
WRIT PETITON NO.18119 OF 2024
Between:
1. V ARUNA KUMARI, W/O NAGARAJU AGED 39 YEARS OCC. PRINCIPAL
(TERMINATED) O/O KGBV KOTHAPATNAM PRAKASAM R/O 46-139-1466
SRI KRISHNA NAGAR KURNOOL ROAD ONGOLE PRAKASAM
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,
AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF SCHOOL EDUCATION SCHOOL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, VENKATADRI TOWERS, MANGALAGIRI ANDHRA
PRADESH
3. THE STATE PROJECT DIRECTOR, SAMAGRA SHIKSHA, KBC BOYS
HIGH SCHOOL PREMISES OPP RYTHU BAZAR PATAMATA
VIJAYAWADA ANDHRA PRADESH
4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND CHAIRMAN, SAMAGRA SIKSHA
PRAKASAM PRAKASAM DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH
5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER AND EX OFFICIO PROJECT
COORDINATOR, SAMAGRA SIKSHA ONGOLE PRAKASAM PRAKASAM
DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH
...RESPONDENT(S):
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 21.12.2024
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the order? : Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of order may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to
see the fair copy of the order? : Yes/No
___________________________
JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
+ WRIT PETITON No.18119 OF 2024
% 21.11.2024
WRIT PETITON No.18119 OF 2024:
Between:
1. V ARUNA KUMARI, W/O NAGARAJU AGED 39 YEARS OCC. PRINCIPAL
(TERMINATED) O/O KGBV KOTHAPATNAM PRAKASAM R/O 46-139-1466
SRI KRISHNA NAGAR KURNOOL ROAD ONGOLE PRAKASAM
…PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,
AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF SCHOOL EDUCATION SCHOOL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, VENKATADRI TOWERS, MANGALAGIRI ANDHRA
PRADESH
3. THE STATE PROJECT DIRECTOR, SAMAGRA SHIKSHA, KBC BOYS
HIGH SCHOOL PREMISES OPP RYTHU BAZAR PATAMATA
VIJAYAWADA ANDHRA PRADESH
4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND CHAIRMAN, SAMAGRA SIKSHA
PRAKASAM PRAKASAM DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH
5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER AND EX OFFICIO PROJECT
COORDINATOR, SAMAGRA SIKSHA ONGOLE PRAKASAM PRAKASAM
DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH
…RESPONDENT(S):
! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri Pamarthy Rathnakar
^ Counsel for Respondents : GP for Services and Revanuru Sudha Rani
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1) 2024 0 supreme (AP) 596
2) (1996) 8 SCC 280
3) (1985) 3 SCC 153
4) (1999) 3 SCC 60
5) (1984) 3 SCC 384
6) (2002) 1 SCC 520
7) 2024 SCC Online SC 2282
This Court made the following:
APHC010354632024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3331]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)SATURDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOURPRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 18119/2024
Between:
1. V ARUNA KUMARI, W/O NAGARAJU AGED 39 YEARS OCC.
PRINCIPAL (TERMINATED) O/O KGBV KOTHAPATNAM PRAKASAM
R/O 46-139-1466 SRI KRISHNA NAGAR KURNOOL ROAD ONGOLE
PRAKASAM
…PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF SCHOOL EDUCATION SCHOOL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, VENKATADRI TOWERS,
MANGALAGIRI ANDHRA PRADESH
3. THE STATE PROJECT DIRECTOR, SAMAGRA SHIKSHA, KBC
BOYS HIGH SCHOOL PREMISES OPP RYTHU BAZAR PATAMATA
VIJAYAWADA ANDHRA PRADESH
4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND CHAIRMAN, SAMAGRA SIKSHA
PRAKASAM PRAKASAM DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH
5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER AND EX OFFICIO PROJECT
COORDINATOR, SAMAGRA SIKSHA ONGOLE PRAKASAM
PRAKASAM DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH
…RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased topleased to issue an order, writ or direction, more particularly one in
the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS to declare the action of respondents
indiscriminately terminate the service of petitioner as Principal at KGBV
Kothapatnam Prakasam District without conducting proper Inquiry nor taken
any explanation from the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the
provisions and violative of principles of natural justice consequently direct the
respondents to cancelled the Order of termination passed by DEO Prakasam
Vide Rc.No.820/ A2/SS/2024 dated 02.08.2024 and conduct a proper enquiry
before passing an order of punishment and reinstate the service of petitioner
and to passIA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the service of petitioner
pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice and passCounsel for the Petitioner:
1. PAMARTHY RATHNAKAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. REVANURU SUDHA RANI (SC FOR SAMAGRA SHIKSHA)
2. GP FOR SERVICES III
The Court made the following order:
Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in terminating the
petitioner’s services as Principal in KGBV, Kothapatnam, Prakasam District,
vide proceedings in Rc.No.820/A2/SS/2024 dated 02.08.2024, without calling
for petitioner’s explanation and conducting inquiry, the above writ petition is
filed.
2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner has been
working as Principal at KGBV, Kothapatnam, Prakasam District, since
13.09.2014 and the Principal is responsible for the overall administration of
the school as a unit. The admissions of (students) girls in KGBVs, are purely
through online. The Principal’s involvement, intervention and discretion are
zero in the admission of the student in the present system.
b) While that being so, one girl got admission on 19.06.2024,
through an online application, in Junior Intermediate (Bi.P.C) in the category of
semi-orphan, S.T. Community, in the institution. Said student, even before
completing one month of joining, went on leave from 26.06.2024 to
10.07.2024 and returned to school on 11.07.2024. The said girl gave birth to a
dead male child in the school bathroom. Thereafter Crime No.256 of 2024 was
registered by Chimakurthy Police, for the offences punishable under Sections
376(3), 376(2)n of IPC, Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, Sections 3(1)(w)(i),
3(2)(v) of the SC ST POA Act.
c) Subsequently, as directed by the Juvenile Justice Committee of
the High Court in its letter ROC No.26/JJ Cell/2024 dated 01.08.2024, the
petitioner attended the meeting. After the meeting, by proceedings in
Rc.No.820/A2/SS/2024 dated 02.08.2024, the petitioner’s services were
terminated without calling for any explanation, affording the opportunity of
hearing and conducting an enquiry. Hence, the writ petition.
3. A Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent No.5. While not
disputing regarding the employment of the petitioner as Principal, joining of
the victim girl in the KGBV, Kothapatnam, on 19.06.2024 and delivery of a
dead male child by the victim girl, it was contended, inter alia, that the
petitioner, being the Principal, is responsible for the overall administration of
the School as per the job chart. The ANM has to take care of the health issues
of the students and bring the issues, if any, to the notice of the Principal.
However, the Principal and ANM failed to find out, the girl’s carrying.
b) After the incident, District Collector, Prakasam District, by
proceedings in Rc.No.A1/472/2024 dated 31.07.2024, constituted a four men-
committee, consisting of Revenue Divisional Officer, DW & CW (O), GDCO
and DIO, Ongole, to conduct inquiry and submit a detailed report. The
committee, after recording the statements of the girl and others, submitted a
report to the District Collector, disclosing lapses on the part of the Principal
and ANM of the KGBV, Kothapatnam. Based on the report of the four-men
committee, respondent No.5 submitted a note to the District Collector, seeking
necessary orders against the petitioner and accepting the same District
Collector granted permission to terminate the services of the Principal and
ANM from duties.
c) Further the petitioner is working on a contract basis under
Samgra Siksha in Prakasam District and she is not a regular employee. Thus,
the AP Civil Services (CC&A) Rules do not apply. As per rules and regulations
laid down by KGBV Society at Para No.13 of the Contract Agreement Bond,
the signatory shall suspend or withdraw the services immediately if the
employee is involved in disciplinary/criminal cases or creates an unhealthy
environment in the school/college. Services of such employees shall be
terminated. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
4. Heard Sri Pamarthy Ratnakar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri
Ravi Teja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services, for respondent
No.1 and Sri V.Nageswara Rao, learned counsel representing Smt. R. Sudha
Rani, learned standing counsel for respondents 2 to 5.
5. Both the counsels reiterated the contentions as per the averments
made in the affidavit and counter affidavit.
6. The points for consideration are
1. Whether the termination of the petitioner by proceedings
Rc.No.820/A2/SS/2024 dated 02.08.2024 is stigmatic or
simpliciter.
2. Whether the termination is stigmatic, it is permissible, without
conducting an enquiry and affording opportunity to the petitioner?
7. Thus, as seen from the narration there is no dispute regarding the
petitioner’s appointment on a contract basis, on 29.05.2014 under Ex.P1 as
special officer and thereafter as Principal KGBV, Kothapatnam, Prakasam
District, till the date of termination under Ex P.5.
8. In the termination proceedings it was observed as follows:
“…in pursuing the reports in the references 1 to 4 cited about the above
incident, and as per the note orders of the Collector and Chairman,
Samagra Siksha, Prakasam District in the reference 6th cited, and as
per the Contract agreement Bond at Para No. 13 (C ) and (D) in the
reference 5th read above, the Services of Smt V.Aruna Kumari who is
working as Principal, KGBV, Kothapatnam, Prakasam District on
contract basis are hereby terminated as negligence and dereliction of
duties in performing their legitimate duties as Principal.”
9. The Genesis as seen from the first paragraph of the proceedings is that
one of the students studying Intermediate Bi.P.C. in KGBV Kothapatnam gave
birth to a dead male child in the school toilet room.
10. The incident referred to supra is catastrophic, whether the termination of
the petitioner is warranted in the facts and the process adopted, needs to be
examined. This court is conscious and is not exercising any appellate
jurisdiction over the decision, however, confined and examining the process
as to whether decision-making is in tune with the principles of natural justice
or not.
11. Going by the facts, the girl joined/was admitted to the hostel on
19.06.2024. The student went on leave from 26.06.2024 to 10.07.2024. She
returned to school on 11.07.2024 and gave birth to a dead child in the
bathroom on 31.07.2024. The petitioner informed the police and the police, in
turn, registered a case vide crime No. 256/2024 on 01.08.2024 against the
accused.
12. The High Court Juvenile Justice Committee convened a meeting with
the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Kothapatnam, the Secretary, KGBV and the
petitioner on 02.08.2024 at 4-30 PM and on the same day, the proceedings
were issued to the petitioner after the meeting.
13. A perusal of the references in the order impugned would manifest six
references. 2nd reference is the report by the Principal (the petitioner); 3rd and
4th references are reports submitted by GCDO dated 01.08.2024 and SHO,
Kothapatnam; 5th reference is the contract agreement and 6th reference is
Note orders of the District Collector and Chairman, Samagra Siksha,
Prakasam District dated 02.08.2024.
14. In the termination order, it was observed that due to negligence,
dereliction of duty and performing legitimate duties as Principal, petitioner’s
services were terminated. The petitioner immediately submitted a
representation dated 03.08.2024 under Ex.P8 to the District Collector and
requested to cancel the termination proceedings.
15. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length regarding
the duties of the petitioner, this is not the stage to go into those aspects.
Hence, this court is not going into those aspects.
16. Even concerning a contract employee, whenever a termination of
service is made in a stigmatic manner, the authority shall follow principles of
natural justice. This Court considered the same in SBTS Devi Vs State of
Andhra Pradesh1 and held that termination without following principles of
natural justice is impermissible. Eventually, set aside the proceedings therein
and by placing reliance upon the Director General of Police and others Vs
Mritunjoy Sarkar and others2 and K.C.Joshi Vs Union of India and
others3, directed the authority to conduct an enquiry and pass a reasoned
order.
17. The ratio in the judgment squarely applies to the facts of the case. It is
also a well-established principle of law that the material which amounts to
1
2024 0 Supreme (AP) 596
2
(1996) 8 SCC 280
3
(1985) 3 SCC 153
stigma need not be contained in the order of termination of the employee, but
might be contained in any document referred to in the termination order. Such
reference may inevitably affect the prospects of the employee. In such
circumstances, the order must be construed as ex-facie a stigmatic order of
termination.
18. In Dipti Prakash Banerjee Vs Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre
for Basic Science4, the Hon’ble Apex Court considered the impact of
references in a proceeding, observed as para 32 and 35 as follows:
32. The next question is whether the reference in the impugned order to
the three earlier letters amounts to a stigma if those three letters
contained anything in the nature of a stigma even though the order of
termination itself did not contain anything offensive.
35. The above decision is, in our view, a clear authority for the
proposition that the material which amounts to stigma need not be
contained in the order of termination of the probationer but might be
contained in any document referred to in the termination order or in its
annexures. Obviously, such a document could be asked for or called for
by any future employer of the probationer. In such a case, the order of
termination would stand vitiated on the ground that no regular enquiry
was conducted. ……
19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Indra Pal Gupta Vs Model Inter College5
observed that:
“The letter of termination referred to the resolution of the
Managing Committee, that the said resolution was made part of the
order as an enclosure and that the resolution in its turn referred to the
report of the Manager. A copy of the Manager’s report had been filed
along with the counter and the said report was the “foundation”.
4
(1999) 3 SCC 60
5
(1984) 3 SCC 384
It was further observed that the Manager’s report contained
words amounting to a stigma. “This is a clear case where the order of
termination issued is merely a camouflage for an order imposing a
penalty of termination of service on the ground of misconduct …”, that
these findings in the Manager’s report amounted to a “mark of disgrace
or infamy” and that the appellant there was visited with evil
consequences.”
20. Whether a termination is punitive or simpliciter and tests to determine
the same were considered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Pavanendra Narayan
Verma Vs Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences6 observed as follows:
“21. One of the judicially evolved tests to determine whether in
substance an order of termination is punitive is to see whether prior to
the termination there was (a) a full-scale formal enquiry (b) into
allegations involving moral turpitude or misconduct which (c) culminated
in a finding of guilt. If all three factors are present the termination has
been held to be punitive irrespective of the form of the termination
order. Conversely if any one of the three factors is missing, the
termination has been upheld.”
21. In a very recent judgment U.P. State Road Transport Corporation
and others Vs Brijesh Kumar and another7 the Hon’ble Apex Court while
affirming the decision of Allahabad High Court confirming the order of learned
single judge, qua termination observes as follows:
19. The services of the respondent have been determined solely on the
ground of misconduct as alleged but without holding any regular inquiry
or affording any opportunity of hearing to him. The termination order
has been passed on the basis of some report which probably was not
even supplied to the respondent. No show cause notice appears to
have been issued to the respondent. Therefore, the order of termination
of his services, even if on contractual basis, has been passed on6
(2002) 1 SCC 520
7
2024 SCC Online SC 2282
account of alleged misconduct without following the Principles of
Natural Justice. The termination order is apparently stigmatic in nature
which could not have been passed without following the Principles of
Natural Justice.
22. In the case at hand as discussed supra, the termination of the petitioner
is not simpliciter. It is a stigmatic termination. The petitioner also made
representation under ExP8 to the District Collector explaining the
circumstances. In such circumstances, the authority ought to have conducted
an inquiry by, giving an opportunity to the petitioner, and also by providing the
requisite documents. The points are answered in favour of the petitioner. The
proceedings impugned suffer from a violation of principles of natural justice
and hence are liable to be set aside.
23. Accordingly this writ petition is allowed. The termination proceedings
issued vide Rc.No.820/A2/SS/2024 dated 02.08.2024, are hereby set aside.
Respondent No.5 shall issue notice afresh to the petitioner and conduct an
enquiry and pass a reasoned order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner. Based on the enquiry report, the respondent shall decide on the
services of the petitioner. The above exercise shall be completed within eight
weeks from receipt of the copy of the order. No costs.
Observations, if any, made in the order will not come in the way of the
authorities in conducting enquiry afresh as per the Rules.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
Dated: 21.12.2024
IKN
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 18119 of 2024
Dated: 21.12.2024
IKN