R SUBRAMANIAN Vs. ANNA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come forward to challenge the order, dated 12.06.2007 passed by the first respondent university and a further order, dated 16.11.2009 and after setting aside those two orders, he seeks for reinstatement with suitable alternative employment with pay protection and all other consequential monetary and service benefits from the date on which he became unfit and unable to attend duty, i.e. on 28.1.1996.

(2.) BY the first impugned order, the petitioner who was working as an Assistant Professor in the department of Electronics Engineering at MIT Campus was informed that he was absenting from duty from 27.2.1996 without prior intimation and leave application. A specific charge was framed against him and he was removed from service by the Syndicate at its 119th Meeting held on 15.4.1998. He was also given a final order on 4.6.1998 with the information that he should file an appeal to the Chancellor within 60 days. Since the petitioner was not available, a notification was also published in "The Hindu" newspaper. The petitioner did not prefer any appeal. Nearly after 12 years, he made a representation that he was severely affected by memory loss and quadriplegia and requested for considering his case sympathically. Therefore, it was stated that his request cannot be considered and his removal as on 4.6.1998 was in terms of disciplinary power vested with the University.

(3.) MR.Ajay Khose, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that he was taking treatment for quadriplegia and he was suffering memory loss. He gained memory and was able to recollect his position only later. He applied under the Right to Information Act, seeking for copies of ordering his removal. After getting the same, he filed the present writ petition. The principal contention raised was that under Section 47(1) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, he cannot be removed and therefore, his removal was illegal. Since he did not know as to what had happened between the years 1996 to 2006, his initially approaching the authorities and later coming to this court cannot be called as laches.