ANIL KUMAR A.P Vs. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) My prodigious sin was, and still is, being a non-conformist.., the sentiments echoed by Charlie Chaplin in "My Autobiography" resembles the thoughts of the petitioner expressed through the social media as against the barriers around him. The petitioner has now fallen in disciplinary boundaries of M.G.University and seeking interference of this Court. The petitioner, a University Assistant, is on the claws of suspension pressed on him by the University.

(2.) A fastidious outlook of a person often invites wrath of others as he may not fall on line of the course decided by them. Being an active member of the Mahatma Gandhi University Employees Association, the petitioner was thrown out from its primary membership on 5.6.2018. This followed his emotional outburst in a sarcastic frame in the social media to poignantly depict persons, who wield power. He also made an appeal to organise a theatre and music club to catalyst the movement towards upholding values. Be that it may look as outrageous to someone, who would really be aggrieved to be provoked, nonetheless for an independent reader it was his angrily disparage on the persons with whom he is at loggerheads. The petitioner has not chosen to name, Institution or persons against whom such diatribe was intended. There is nothing on the face to conclude that it was against the University or the officials of the University. One can ignore this as a mere outcry. But those who know what had caused his vituperative response cannot remain unmindful, to be provoked for vengeance. Any such outcry in social media need not be understood as against the Institution. It may be a subject matter of inquiry whether it was intended against the University or against officers or was against the persons in the Union. If this emotional outburst is understood in isolation with his expulsion of membership, perhaps it may have any colourable meaning. The University thought that it was an attack on the University or towards persons, who were in higher echelons of the University. Provoked by this, the University suspended him from service on 8.8.2018. This writ petition was filed on 10.9.2018 challenging his suspension. Taking note of the nature and the circumstances leading to the suspension, this Court thought it fit to relegate to the Vice Chancellor by an Interim Order dated 14.9.2018 to decide upon continuation of the suspension order. On 18.9.2018 that was considered. Reiterating that it was a call from the petitioner to instigate the employees rebel against the University and authorities and tarnish the prestige of the University in public, suspension was ordered to be continued. The learned counsel for the University, Shri P.C. Sasidharan points out the maintainability of the writ petition without recourse to statutory remedy before the Syndicate.

(3.) What constitute a misconduct, perhaps is the subject matter of the inquiry. It would be inappropriate for this Court to deal with that issue now.