P PON KAILASAM SARASWATHI NARAYANAN COLLEGE PERUNGUDI MADURAI Vs. SECRETARY SARASWATHI NARAYANAN COLLEGE PERUNGUDI MADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was originally appointed as a Tutor in the Department of Tamil in the 1st respondent College in the year 1971. THE petitioner appeared for an interview before a Committee-held for the purpose of filling up a post of Assistant Professor in Tamil on 12.7.1975. When the College re-opened on 16.7.1975 after Summer Recess, the Principal of the College, by memo dated 16.7.1975 informed the petitioner that he (Principal) was shocked at the petitioner's behaviour towards him on the evening of 12.7.1975 and called upon the petitioner to explain why suitable disciplinary action should not be taken against him for the alleged behaviour of the petitioner towards the Principal, THEn again, the Principal by another memo dated 21.7.1975 framed the charges specified therein and called upon the petitioner to submit his explanation. In the preamble portion of the said memo, it is stated that the petitioner was asked to show cause why the Principal should not report to the Management his behaviour for suitable disciplinary action on the charges set forth therein. Later on, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 9.8.1975. Subsequently, the petitioner was informed that there was an enquiry on 7.10.1975 with reference to the charges framed against him. On 7.10.1975 the petitioner was given a communication with a direction to meet the Correspondent of the College to face the enquiry to be conducted by one L.N.V.Subramanian, Advocate, Madurai. It is alleged that at the request of the petitioner, the enquiry was adjourned. Later, on one Thiru J.R.Satchidanandam, Advocate, Madurai was said to be appointed as the Enquiry Officer. THE petitioner was directed to appear for the Enquiry to be held by the said Advocate on 24.11.1977. Admittedly, the petitioner did not participate in the enquiry for the reasons set forth in the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition. THEreafter, based on the Report of the said Enquiring Authority, the 1st Respondent, by Order dated 5.12.1977, imposed the punishment of withholding of increments in the scale applicable to the petitioner for three years commencing from June, 1975 on the basis that the misconducts committed by the petitioner, viz., gross misbehaviour, in subordination and wilful neglect of duty are serious acts of misconduct and such acts of misconduct, it not checked, would be deleterious to the maintenance of discipline, especially in an educational institution for higher studies. Aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Government and the Government, by an order dated 17.4.1979, rejected the appeal on the ground that the petitioner's request was not feasible of compliance. Aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.2653 of 1979, on the file of this Court, and this Court, by Order dated 13.4.1983, directed the Government to dispose of the appeal on merits. THEreafter, the Government by G.O.Ms.No.1778, dated 14.9.1983, rejected the appeal on the ground that the appeal preferred by the petitioner is not maintainable having due regard to the statutory provisions contained in the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act. It is at this stage, the petitioner herein has preferred the above writ petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the aforesaid Order of the 1st respondent dated 5.12.1977, as confirmed by the Order of the third respondent, namely, the Government, dated 14.9.1983, withholding the increment for three years commencing from June, 1975.

(2.) MR.P.Shanmugham, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the initiation of the proceedings by the Principal who himself is involved in the incident in respect of which the proceedings were initiated, is not maintainable in law. Learned counsel further contended that as per Sec.l4(l)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, only the College Committee is competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the teachers of the Private College. In the instant case, the College Committee did not initiate the disciplinary proceedings and consequently the entire proceedings are vitiated. Secondly, the enquiry was held by an Authority not competent to hold the same as per the instructions issued by the University in this behalf. Thirdly, the petitioner was not favoured with a report of the Enquiring Authority. Finally, the enquiry has been re-instituted after a lapse of two years. For all these reasons, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned proceedings are vitiated.

(3.) FOR the reasons set forth hereinabove, the impugned Orders are not sustainable in law and consequently they are hereby quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.