CHAIRMAN SSM INSTITUTE OF TEXTILE TECHNOLOGY AND POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE NAMAKKAL DISTRICT Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY/COMMISSIONER OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION GUINDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS both the writ petitions are interconnected, they were heard together and disposed of by this common order. W.P. No.17284 of 2009 has been preferred by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner'), K.B.Krishnakumar, for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent, the Chairman & Correspondent, SSM Institute of Textile Technology Polytechnic College, Komarapalayam, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Institute') in proceedings No.11 dated 6th July, 2009, quash the same with further direction to the 2nd respondent to pay the arrears of salary and other attendant benefits w.e.f. 13th June, 2005. The other writ petition, W.P. No.10592 of 2009 has been filed by the petitioner/2nd respondent in W.P. No.17284, Chairman & Correspondent, SSM Institute of Textile Technology Polytechnic College, Komarapalayam, challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent, the Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Technical Education in proceeding No.l1095/C4/2005 dated 13th Mach, 2009 and quash the same.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner in W.P. No.17284/09 that he was originally appointed as Lecturer in the year 1979 in the 2nd respondent Institute and, subsequently, was promoted as Associate Lecturer on 6th Sept., 1985. Immediately within one year he became a Senior Lecturer in August, 1986 and he was promoted as the Head of the Department in the year 1999. Finally, when the post of Principal fell vacant, he was nominated as Principal (In-Charge) by order of the Director of Technical Education dated 26th Dec., 2003 with retrospective effect from 7th July, 2003 and, thereby, he has put in more than 19 years of continuous service in the Institute. Whileso, there was some internal dispute in the management of the 2nd respondent Institute and the petitioner was also aware of the same. In view of the said dispute between the two groups of people, there was an allegation of misappropriation of huge amounts under various heads against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo and enquiry notice dated 29th July, 2004, by listing out the various irregularities committed by the petitioner, and the same was served upon the petitioner calling upon him to submit his explanation therefor. The main allegation levelled against the petitioner in the said charge memo is that, the petitioner, taking advantage of the dual management setup, is said to have taken undue advantage of the same and participated in the process of abducting and confining the actual principal, one Mr.G.S.Jayaprakasam, in illegal custody of those, who attempted to take over the institution. Subsequently, the then principal, Mr.G.S.Jayaprakasam was compelled to abstain from work from 7th July, 2003, much before the date of his superannuation, which fell on 31st Oct., 2003 and, subsequently, the petitioner was appointed as Principal (In-charge) on 26th Dec., 2003. By the time he was appointed as Principal (In-charge), he was not having the requisite qualification for the said post. Therefore, he was not confirmed in view of his not having the requisite basic qualification prescribed for the post. However, the management, by appointing him as Principal (In-charge), allowed him to acquire the requisite qualification. Subsequently, the petitioner is said to have submitted his explanation to the charge memo. Pending the euquiry, the petitioner was also placed under suspension by the order of the 2nd respondent, dated 22nd July, 2004, and, subsequently, the 2nd respondent issued a charge memo dated 29th July, 2004 and on receipt of the said charge memo, the petitioner also submitted his explanation on 2nd Aug., 2004, denying all the charges framed against him. Thereafter, domestic enquiry was initiated by appointing two persons as enquiry officers. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed W.P. Nos.23605 and 23606/04 on the file of this Court challenging the said suspension and the charge memo respectively. This Court, by order dated 20th Sept., 2004, directed to appoint a retired District Judge as enquiry officer to go into the allegations and, accordingly, one retired District Judge, Mr.T.S.Palanisivagurunathan, was appointed to conduct the enquiry and to pass orders within a period of three months therefrom. In view of the order passed by this Court appointing a retired District Judge, the petitioner was once again asked to appear for the enquiry. Subsequently, the enquiry officer issued notice dated 28th Sept., 2004, calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation in writing to the charge memo dated 29th July, 2004, to which the petitioner also submitted his explanation on 9th Oct., 2004. Thereafter, after conducting the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 25th Feb., 2005, holding the charges 1, 2 and 4 to 8 as proved and charge No.3 was held not proved. After submission of the enquiry report, the Chairman & Correspondent of the Institute, issued a further show cause notice dated 17th March, 2005, calling upon the petitioner to show cause against the findings of the enquiry officer. The petitioner, in reply to the second show cause notice, also submitted his explanation on 21st March, 2005. Considering his explanation, the 2nd respondent has passed an order dated 13th June, 2005, dismissing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal from service dated 13th June, 2005, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 11th July, 2005, u/s 20 and 37 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Regulation Act, 1976 and Rule 14 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Regulation Rules, to the 1st respondent, the Director, Directorate of Technical Education, Chennai.

(3.) THE main thrust of argument advanced by Mr.Prabhakaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are three-fold. Firstly, after the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, which culminated into the order of dismissal and, subsequently, the said order of dismissal was set aside by the appellate authority by order dated 13th March, 2009, fresh charge memo cannot be issued and the disciplinary authority is not empowered to proceed once again in respect of any of the allegations that formed part of the earlier proceedings and, therefore, it was contended that the allegations pertaining to the very same incident cannot be proceeded with afresh in the guise of a fresh enquiry. Secondly, the impugned proceedings are actuated by mala fides, since the petitioner was issued with various memos one after the other. THE subsequent enquiry proceedings are vitiated on account of mala fides. On this account, he prayed for setting aside the impugned order by allowing the present writ petition. Thirdly, the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 6th July, 2009, are vitiated by unreasonable delay from the date of alleged incident and the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings, and on that basis, by relying upon several judgments, prayed for quashing the impugned order.