K. Prabhakara Laxmi vs Chairman and Correspondent, S.A.P. Arts and Science College and Another

S.R. Nayak, J.—Heard Mr. G. Vidyasagar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K. Pratap Reddy, learned senior Counsel for the educational institution and the learned Government Pleader for Higher education.

In this writ petition, the petitioner, on the date of presentation of the writ petition in this Court, was working as Lecturer in Political Science. The 1st respondent is the management of the College and the 2nd respondent is the Regional Director of Higher Education, Warangal. The petitioner was placed under suspension by the Management of the College on 21-6-1989, pending an enquiry into certain alleged misbehaviour on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner did not participate in the enquiry conducted by the management protesting that the enquiry was not in accordance with the rules and regulations governing such enquiry. The management, after holding ex parte enquiry on 19-1-1990, issued a show-cause proposing dismissal of the petitioner. Permission of the 2nd respondent was sought for removing the petitioner from service as a disciplinary measure. On 11-2-1991, the petitioner made a representation to the management of the College to reinstate her into service forthwith or pay her full salary. Since the management did not respond to this request, the petitioner approached this Court and filed this writ petition on 25-3-1991. On 21-3-1991, the Regional Director of Higher Education, Warangal set aside the enquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the management and directed the management to conduct the enquiry afresh, and if the petitioner is found guilty of misconduct in such enquiry, then, to impose any penalty other than the penalty of dismissal. The management did not hold any fresh enquiry. However, on 5-2-1992, the petitioner was reinstated into service by the management.

During the pendency of this writ petition, this Court, on 22-11-1991, passed an interim order in W.P.M.P. No. 5537 of 1991 directing the respondent to pay salary due to the petitioner for a period of six months from 19-11-1989. Sri Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the direction of this Court, the petitioner was paid salary on 21-12-1991 for the period of six months from 19-11-1989.

The narration of the aforementioned facts discloses that the main relief sought by the petitioner does not survive for consideration as on today in view of the developments which were taken place subsequent to the date of filing of the writ petition. However, Sri Vidyasagar, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that u/s 79 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, an employee could not validly be placed under suspension for a period more than two months. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to full wages for the period between 21-6-1989, the date on which the petitioner was placed under suspension and 5-2-1992, the date on which the petitioner was reinstated into service, minus two months. The salary for a period of six months is already paid to the petitioner as stated supra. Therefore, the respondents are liable to pay the remaining balance of full wages to the petitioner in terms indicated above.

However, the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education would contend that as per the counter filed by the management of the College, the delay in completion of the enquiry occurred on account of non-cooperation of the petitioner, and in that view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled to the full salary for the entire period of suspension. In that connection, the learned Government Pleader would draw the attention of the Court to the proviso to Clause (b)of sub-section (3)of Section 79 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982. That proviso provides that the competent authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the period of two months for a further period not exceeding two months, if in the opinion of such competent authority the enquiry could not be completed within the said period of two months, for reasons directly attributable to such employee. Nothing is placed before the Court to show that while the competent authority extended the period of suspension by one month, he did so by recording that the enquiry could not be completed within a period of two months for the reasons directly attributable to the petitioner. In the absence of such factual assertion in the pleading and the supporting proof, there is no scope for this Court to apply that proviso. Added to this, when the Regional Director of Higher Education, Warangal set aside the enquiry proceedings by his order dated 21-3-1991, he too did not record any finding that the completion of the enquiry was delayed on account of any reasons or factors attributable to the petitioner. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader does not merit acceptance.

The post held by the petitioner is an aided post. The petitioner is not an employee of the Government. There is no privity of contract of employment between the petitioner and the Government. However, the liability to pay salary to the teachers working in the aided educational institutions is takenover by the Govenrment in terms of grant-in-aid. In that view of the matter, the argument of the learned senior counsel, Mr. K. Pratap Reddy, that the Government alone is liable to pay the wages and not the management is not well-founded. The petitioner, being an employee of the management, the primary liability is on the management, and salaries paid by the management can be claimed from the Government in terms of grant-in-aid. However, it is not the argument of the learned Government Pleader, that the Government is not liable to reimburse the salary of the petitioner. This is obviously because, admittedly the post held by the petitioner is an aided post, and the liability to pay the salary to the petitioner is taken over by the Government under the terms of grant-in-aid. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the liability is on the management as well as on the Govenrment. Although that is the position in law, good administration and fairness in action require that the Government should pay the balance of salary to the petitioner, particularly having regard to the established facts of this case. It will not be fair for the Government to ask the management to pay the balance first and then seek reimbursement.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pay full salary to the petitioner for the period between 21-6-1989 and 5-2-1992, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In calculating the salary, the salary already paid to the petitioner for a period of six months and also the salary payable to the petitioner for a period of two months can be set-off. No costs.