(Prayer: 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 a writ, order, or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction and failure of the Respondents in acknowledging the adjustment bills of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) , issued to the petitioner during his tenure as Director of Distance Education, Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Anantapur, despite of submission and official acknowledgment of the submission of bills, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the Respondent-2 to treat the said advance as duly accounted for and to pay the gratuity which was unpaid to the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law and in the interest of justice.

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

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 Respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 02- 04-2025, strictly in accordance with law and within a time frame as may be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of justice;)

1. This writ petition is filed declaring the inaction and failure of the Respondents in acknowledging the adjustment bills of Rs.15 lakhs issued to the Petitioner during his tenure as Director of Distance Education (DDE), Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Anantapur as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The facts leading to filing of the writ petition are as follows:

               The Petitioner while working as Professor in Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Anantapur was entrusted with additional responsibilities as Director of Distance Education (DDE) from June, 2012 to November, 2014 for conducting examinations and related academic activities. After discharge of these duties, the Petitioner was superannuated on 01.05.2022 and pension was fixed on 27.06.2024. In discharge of duties, various advances were sanctioned to the Petitioner for conducting of examination, evaluation of PCP programs and other incidental activities.

3. A three-member committee was constituted to scrutinize the bills and advances pertaining to the Petitioner and had classified the expenses incurred under five tables. The issue in this writ petition is with regard to Table-II, wherein the Committee had noted that though the Petitioner had submitted bills in the Finance Section, the same were not traced out and there are no entries of adjustments in the advance recovery register. It is stated that the Executive Council in their meeting on 02.03.2024 had considered the three-member committee report and resolved to withhold Rs.15 lakhs from the terminal benefits of the Petitioner. It is opined that though the Assistant Audit Officer had issued a report directing recovery of Rs.28,76,910/-, the Petitioner is disputing the recovery to the extent of Rs.15 lakhs only. An amount of Rs.15 lakhs was sought to be recovered from the Petitioner as there was no proof of bills in the concerned department. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed.

4. In the counter-affidavit filed by Respondent No.2, it is stated that though the Petitioner furnished bills for an amount of Rs.15 lakhs for conducting UG/PG exams, PCP bills etc., and the bills were received by the Tapal Finance and Accounts Section and handed over to the concerned staff member Sri K.Krishnamurthy, Senior Assistant on the same day, but these bills are not available in the Finance and Account Sections and were not placed before the Committee for consideration. It was further stated that the concerned Officer on duty i.e Sri K.Krishnamurthy had received the bills, the said Krishnamurthy was found involved in misappropriation of funds amounting to Rs.4.00 crores along with two other members i.e. G.Uday Bhaskar Reddy and K.Sheshaiah, Senior Assistants and these individuals were suspended from service on 19.11.2014 and later K.Krishnamurthy was dismissed from service as charges of misappropriation were proved on 24.03.2016. Subsequently, K.Krishnamurthy died on 30.04.2018.

5. It is stated that on the request of the Petitioner, a three-member Committee was constituted by the then Vice-Chancellor with the approval of the Executive Council comprising one expert from Department of Commerce, one expert from the Finance and Accounts Section, SKU and one expert from Finance and Accounts Section, JNTU-A, Anantapuramu. As there is an ambiguity with regard to the bills regarding Rs.15 lakhs, it was opined that the Petitioner cannot be absolved from any of the regular University accounting procedures and audit process. It is stated that the Petitioner though furnished a copy of the report, did not submit his objections and further gave an undertaking on 23.11.2023 agreeing that any unsettled advance including the impugned amount may be deducted from his pensionary benefits.

6. It was also opined that the Committee's recommendations were placed before the Executive Council which in turn forwarded them to audit department for verification and certification. The Assistant Audit Officer, State Audit, in his letter dated 18.04.2024 advised recovery of Rs.28,76,910/- towards the pending advances of the individual, which include the impugned amount of Rs.15 lakhs. The same was communicated to the Petitioner and recovery was affected by proceedings dated 27.06.2024 and all these facts were suppressed by the Petitioner in the writ petition. Pursuant to the communications, Petitioner had received the retirement benefits in entirety after recovering the amounts as mentioned above on 28.08.2024 and the Petitioner has accepted the same without any demur.

7. Heard Sri P.Madhukar Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned standing counsel for the University.

8. During the tenure of the Petitioner as Director of Distance Education (DDE), an amount of Rs.2,31,18,672/- was advanced to the Petitioner for discharging his duties. As there were disputes regarding the amounts expended, a three-member committee was constituted on 07.03.2022 to scrutinize the bills to ascertain the expenditure. The expenses were classified in five Tables i.e. Table-I are the details of advances extended to the Petitioner, Table-II are the details of advances, for which bills are available with Finance and Audit Section placed before the Committee for scrutiny, Table-III are the details of advances for which bills are not available but submitted (adjusted partially based on the entries made in advance recovery register and other proofs). Table-IV are details of advances approved by the authorities and registered and Table-V are the details of advances for which bills are not submitted, but recovery was recommended.

9. The issue in this writ petition is with regard to Table-III, wherein an amount of Rs.15 lakhs which was advanced to the Petitioner for conducting UG/PG examination, valuation and PCP bills. As per the observation in the report of the Committee that there are entries of proof of receipt of bills by the concerned clerk in Tapal entry register, but the bills are not available to be placed before the Committee for scrutiny. It is only on that count, the bills for Rs 15,00,000/- submitted by the Petitioner were directed to be recovered.

10. The Petitioner does not dispute the recovery for the balance amount of Rs.3,63,710/- and Rs.8,85,977/- mentioned in Table-V. The observation of the committee with regard to Rs.15 lakhs is as under:

               8. With regard to 15,00,000/- advance, the Director has claimed that he submitted the bills to the Finance & Accounts Section. The Officer On Duty provided information that there is a proof of receipt of bills by the concerned clerk as per Tapal Registers entries. But, the bills are not available in the Finance & Accounts Section and the same are not placed before the Committee for scrutiny (Item no. 3 in Appendix-II).

               The Committee is of opinion that mere submission of Xerox copy of covering letter is not evidence in the absence of original bills. Moreover claiming that the bills were submitted to Sri. K. Krishna Murthy, the then concerned clerk, who is no more, appears to be mysterious.

11. The only reason for ordering recovery of Rs 15,00,000/- is non-availability of bills for the said amounts, though they were received by the concerned section.

12. Firstly, the Petitioner cannot be made a scapegoat as there is no dispute to the fact that the Petitioner had submitted bills, but these bills were lost in the concerned section of the University. Secondly, there is no allegation that the Petitioner was involved in any shady acts with regard to the conduct of UG/PG examination, valuation and incidental expenses. Lastly, there is no dispute to the fact that PG/UG exams were conducted when the Petitioner was at the helm of affairs of DDE. In the absence of any dispute with regard to the conduct of examination and consequential expenditure, the impugned action of the Respondent-University to withhold the amounts expended, appears to be irrational.

13. The only way to resolve the amounts payable to the Petitioner is to consider the expenditure incurred by the Director of Distance Education for the previous and the subsequent academic year i.e 2013-14 and in the event, the expenses incurred are broadly similar on all parameters, the Respondent University shall pay the amounts to the Petitioner.

14. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

               (i) The Respondents are directed to examine the expenditure incurred for UG/PG evaluation and PCP bills etc., for the previous academic year i.e. 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 forthwith.

               (ii) In the event, the expenses incurred by the Petitioner during his tenure as Director of Distance Education is broadly similar to the previous and subsequent academic years, the Respondent-University shall pay the Petitioner the amounts withheld from the retirement benefits.

               (iii) The above exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a web copy of this order.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed.