C B SUDHAKARAN Vs. COCHIN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner was working as a Selection Grade Lecturer as also the Head of the Department in English in the Cochin College run by the Cochin Educational Society, which is a private college affiliated to Mahatma Gandhi University. He possess a Doctorate in English. While working so, he was elected as a staff representative of the Parent Teacher Association (hereinafter referred to as 'PTA' for short) during 2002-03 and 2003-04. The constitution of the Executive Committee consists of 25 members of which 16 shall represent the parents/guardians of the students studying in the college and 9 members are to be selected as representatives of the staff of the college the President of the PTA is considered to be the guardian of students as per the bye-laws and its Secretary, a member of the staff. While holding the position as the Secretary of the PTA, the petitioner along with the President happened to sent a complaint to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, alleging certain mismanagement against the office of the college, On receipt of the said complaint, a surprise check was made by the vigilance in the office of the Cochin College and had taken certain documents for the purpose of investigation. The intervention of the vigilance, as a result of the complaint made by the petitioner, was considered to be a conduct unbecoming of a Lecturer in the College and the management thought that the petitioner was instrumental for bringing disrepute to the institution, kept him under suspension from service by order dated 28-5-2004, invoking Section 63(1) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). As per the above provision, the Educational Agency is competent to place a teacher of a private college under suspension, when any disciplinary proceedings is proposed to be taken against him or when such disciplinary proceedings are pending. However, as per Section 63(4) of the Act, such discilinary action has to be completed within a period of three months or within such further period as may be allowed by the Vice-Chacellor.

(2.) Challenging the order of suspension, the petitioner has approached this Court by filling W.P(C) No. 17784 of 2004. Though the challenge in the writ petition was only against the suspension order, by the time the matter came up for hearing, the normal charge sheet was issued and the petitioner has also submitted his reply. This Court, in such circumstances, by order dated 3-8-2004, directed that if the enquiry against the petitioner is not completed before 28-8-2004, the maximum time fixed for completing the enquiry as per Section 63(4) of the Act, the petitioner shall be reinstanted in service. Of course, we notice that under Section 63(4) of the Act, it is not merely the enquiry, but the entire disciplinary proceedings should be completed with, a period of three months. In the interim order passed by this Court in W.P(C) No. 17784 of 2004, there was an observation that the action of the petitioner will amount to setting the law in motion, by moving the competent authority to enquire into certain allegations concerned with the collection and utilisation of the funds of PTA etc. Prima facie, on the facts disclosed in the suspension order, it was unnecessary to keep the teacher under suspension. This Court went on to say that the case of something similar to the classical examble of unreasonable administrative action, i.e., dismissing a teacher for being red haired. Though Sri. Chitambaresh, the learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner placed heavy reliance on the said order, we may notice that such an observation was made at a pre-mature stage of the enquiry, at a time when the ultimate punishment of dismissal could not have been contemplated. However, the management could not complete the disciplinary proceedings within the aforesaid period of three months as contemplated by the Statute and as directed by this Court. Hence, he was reinstated in service and proceeded with the disciplinary action. An enquiry officer was appointed to hold a dometic enquiry into the allegations levelled against the petitioner. Enquiry was conducted after giving an opportunity of being heard in the matter, including an opportunity to cross examine the witness examined on the side of the management, and to adduce his own evidence in the matter both oral and documentary. As per the final report submitted by the enquiry officer, we find that some of the charges are proved in the enquiry. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that there were altogether five charges levelled against the delinquent employee, the petioner herein, and the allegation that he has filed a complaint without being backed by a resolution of the PTA which resulted in the vigilance action, is only one among such charges. The management agreed with the above finding and issued a second show cause notice to the petitioner, giving him an opportunity to show cause on the punishment aspect Thereafter, the management passed an order of compulsory retirement as a punishment, as contemplated by the Statutue. This was challenged by the petitioner before the Statutory Tribunal by filling an appeal. The tribunal eventually, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision is filed invoking the provisions under Section 63(9) of the Act, as per which a revision lies to this Court on the ground that the Appellate Tribunal has either decided erroneously or failed to decide any question of laws

(3.) We have heared the arguments of Sri. Chitambaresh, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri. N. Ranghuraj, the learned Counsel appearing along with him and also Sri. Jayasankar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.