BINDHU GEORGE Vs. MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in WP(C) No.13641/2020 has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to finalise the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner within a period of one month. It was further observed that if the petitioner co-operates and the disciplinary proceedings are not finalised within the stipulated time, she shall be reinstated.

(2.) The writ petition was filed by the petitioner/appellant challenging an order of suspension dated 2/7/2020. While challenging the order of suspension, petitioner has also sought for a declaration that the 4th respondent is not qualified and eligible to continue either as the Principal-in-charge or the Drawing and Disbursing Officer. The contention urged by the petitioner was that the Manager was not competent to issue an order of suspension. The power of suspension in terms of S.63 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 is on the educational agency which cannot be delegated to the Manager. It is further contended that the allegations raised in a complaint against the petitioner which was received under cover of letter dated 6/3/2020 (Ext.P1) was closed after receiving the explanation of the petitioner as evident from Ext.P4 dated 25/5/2020 of the Manager. Once the incident had been closed, merely for the reason that the petitioner had given Ext.P5 letter dated 22/6/2020 to recall the stigmatic letter issued to her, the Manager was not justified in suspending the petitioner as per Ext.P6 order dated 2/7/2020. Yet another contention that was urged was that petitioner was the senior-most teacher eligible to be appointed as Principal and it is overlooking her seniority that the 4 th respondent was appointed as Principal-in-charge and also the Drawing and Disbursing Officer.

(3.) Learned Single Judge after having considered the respective contentions came to a finding that the Manager is entitled to exercise such powers and discharge such duties as may be delegated to him by the Unitary management or the Corporate management in terms of S.56(4) of the Act and Ext.R1(d) reflects the powers which have been delegated to the Manager. It is specifically indicated in Ext.R1(d) that the Manager has been invested with all the powers of the educational agency as per the University Statutes and Act. It was therefore found that the power of the educational agency u/s 63 of the Act which relates to the disciplinary powers of educational agency over teachers of private colleges has also been delegated. Apparently, the findings of the learned Single Judge with regard to the competence of the Manager to issue the order of suspension based on delegated authority cannot be doubted, and hence we do not intend to interfere with the said finding.