MADHAVAN PILLAI Vs. BALANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a permanent lecturer in the Department of Physics of the S. N. M. College, Malankara, which is under a corporate Educational Agency known as H M.D.P. Sabha at Vadakekara, Parur. The first respondent in the O.P., is the Chairman of the Managing Council of the College as welt as the Manager of the Institution while the Principal is its ex officio Secretary. The petitioner alleges in the writ petition that the present Principal who is a local man with considerable influence over the Sabha is an intriguer of some sort who creates difficulties for those who stands up to him.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the college being only a Junior college in respect of science with only lecturers with equal status and duties in the department of Physics, the principal is alleged to have unauthorisedly raised one of the lecturers in the department, said to be a favourite of his as head of the department. Though this action raised a mild protest among the members of the staff it is alleged that only the petitioner and another colleague of his finally stood unyielding to this injustice

(3.) According to the petitioner, because of the aforementioned attitude of the petitioner and his colleague, the first respondent adopting the Principal's accusations that they questioned the authority of the Principal and thereby of the Management, framed a set of charges against them, suspended them and initiated disciplinary proceedings against them. It is also alleged that Junior of the Manager's Standing Counsel was appointed as Inquiry Officer. Petitioner and the other protested against this proposal and asked for an independent disinterested inquiry officer who should be above all suspicion of bias and partisanship. As their demand was not accepted they filed O.P. 3747 of 1975. That O. P., was finally disposed of by this court, counsel for the Management agreeing for the appointment of a new inquiry officer, cancelling appointment already made. I think it would be proper if I extract, herein below the statement of the petitioner in the O. P., with regard to what happened in that matter: