- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The Diocese of Medak is running an institution known as CSI EVA MAIR Technical Institute at Secunderabad. The appellant is the Chairman of the Diocesan Executive Committee and Respondent 1 is the Principal of the said technical institute. On the basis of the report made by the Socio-Economic Board concerned with administration of the institutions within the Diocese of Medak, the Executive Committee resolved on 12/6/1995 to appoint an Enquiry Commission to enquire into the acts of commission and omission of Respondent 1. It also resolved to suspend Respondent 1. Pursuant to that resolution the appellant by an order dated 12/6/1995 suspended Respondent 1 pending the enquiry and by letter of the same date a Commission of Enquiry was constituted. The terms of reference were as under: 1. Wilful insubordination and non-cooperation 2. Leaving headquarters without prior permission or intimation , 3. Unauthorised appointment of staff 4. Admissions 5. Purchases of furniture and equipment 6. Addressing letters against the Bishop and Diocesan Administration 7. Using derogatory remarks against the Bishop and Diocesan Administration; and 8. Entire functioning of the Institution.
(3.) The Commission of Enquiry submitted its report on 21/9/1995. The Enquiry Commission found that there was sufficient material in support of the charges made against Respondent 1. Therefore, on 5/11/1995 the Diocesan Executive Committee issued a notice to Respondent 1 calling upon her to show cause why she should not be dismissed from service. Thereupon, Respondent 1 filed a writ petition in the A. P. High courtchallenging the order of her suspension and also the action of the appellant constituting an Enquiry Commission. In the counter filed by the appellant it was stated that the Enquiry Commission was only a fact-finding body, that an Inquiry Officer will be appointed to hold an enquiry and that a detailed charge-sheet will be issued based on the report of the Enquiry Commission. In view of this statement the learned Single Judge of the High court, on 13/11/1995, dismissed the petition as premature. The first respondent, therefore, filed Writ Appeal No. 1746 of 1995 before a division bench of that court. Meanwhile, as Respondent 1 did not give any satisfactory explanation with respect to the allegations made against her the appellant appointed an Inquiry Officer on 29/12/1995. The division bench, on 1/2/1996, allowed the appeal as it was of the view that the terms of reference made to the Enquiry Commission were vague and general and that there was an "element of mala fides" on the part of the appellant in initiating the said proceedings and that the order of suspension dated 12/6/1995 having come to an end on 12/10/1995 Respondent 1 was entitled to be restored as Principal. Aggrieved by that order the appellant has Filed this appeal.;