M RAJASEKARAN Vs. CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to Resolution No.170/2001 of the first respondent and the consequential Office Order dated 19.2.2001, to quash the same and to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with full backwages.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he was working as a Field Officer from 24.10.1984 to 12.7.1993 in the Spices Board, Ministry of Commerce, Government of India. Later he joined as Assistant Registrar, Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi and was working till 17.4.1995. Thereafter he joined the service of the respondent/I.I.T. According to the petitioner he has rendered service without any blemish. He would further state that the permanent staff of the Institute have been classified into three categories namely, (a) academic, (b) technical, and (c) administrative staff. The post of Assistant Registrar falls under the category to which the appointing authority is the Board of Directors. It is further stated that in terms of Section 13 of the statute dealing with the terms and conditions of service, the powers to impose various penalties are specified. Section 13(9) deals with the procedure to impose penalties.

(3.) The petitioner states that having rendered more than 16 years of service in the Central Government, he has not committed any misconduct throughout his service. The petitioner was in the habit of even pointing out irregularities of the superiors and he was very strict in adherence of Rules and Procedure and in the discharge his official duties. Ever since Professor Natarajan took charge as Director of the Institute, there has been number of complaints of irregularities which were not redressed. The Institute was also in the habit of framing flimsy and frivolous complaints which were referred to retired Judges by spending huge amounts of public funds. The petitioner has mentioned certain incidents which according to him would show that Professor R.Natarajan was adopting vindictive attitude towards non-academic staff. The petitioner further states that he had brought to the knowledge of the second respondent about the misuse of the Government vehicles, irregularities in financial management, appointment of NMRs. In particular, he had objected to the irregular payments made in favour of Professor Ravindran towards Leave encashment which was against the Rules. He had also made complaints against his superior Mr.Panchalan, Deputy Registrar about irregular appointments. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the respondents/authorities have been nursing a grouse against the petitioner and waiting to take a revenge. While so, on 16.6.2000, one Miss. Geetha claiming to be an NMR worker in I.I.T.Hospital made a telephone call to the petitioner and expressed that she wanted to meet the petitioner in person. In the afternoon she met the petitioner in the office and attempted to give a bribe of Rs.500/- requesting that the petitioner should help her in getting appointment for two candidates of her choice. On hearing this he shouted at her and told her that he would report about the same to the higher authorities. The incident occurred in front of two staff members and the petitioner also claims to have reported the same to the Director vide his letter dated 19.6.2000. On the same day, the third respondent issued a letter to the petitioner informing him that he had abused the said Geetha with filthy and unparliamentary words and the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation on or before 26.6.2000. A copy of the complaint was also enclosed. On 21.6.2000, the petitioner submitted his explanation stating that he has already reported the incident. The allegation that he abused in filthy language and used unparliamentary words, was denied. The third respondent by letter dated 5.9.2000 informed the petitioner that the competent authority had ordered an enquiry to be conducted into the charges and that Dr.M.Mariappan, formerly Deputy Director of C.L.R.I.was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Enquiry Officer on 12.9.2000 at 2.30 p.m. The petitioner also made a complaint to the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It appears that on receipt of letters from the Commission, further proceedings against the petitioner were dropped. It is further stated that the petitioner by letter dated 11.9.2000, had sought for clarification and had stated that the enquiry was not at all warranted as definite charges had not been framed. He also objected to the appointment of Mr.K.Panchalan, Deputy Director, against whom he had made several complaints. But the petitioner was informed that the letter calling for explanation dated 19.6.2000 itself was a charge memo and therefore, he should be present for the enquiry. By letter dated 12.9.2000 the petitioner was intimated that the enquiry had been postponed, without mentioning any date. Thereafter there was no communication. Subsequently, by letter dated 11.1.2001 which was served on the petitioner on 12.1.2001 at 5.40 p.m. the petitioner was informed about the enquiry contemplated against him and that since his explanation dated 21.6.2000 was not found to be satisfactory, an enquiry was to be held and the Enquiry Officer had scheduled to hold the enquiry on 15.1.2001. But the third respondent did not specify the time as done in the earlier letter dated 5.9.2000. In the letter dated 11.1.2001 the petitioner was merely asked to appear before the enquiry on 15.1.2001. On 15.1.2001 the petitioner wrote to the respondent stating that their letter did not contain any time for the enquiry. There was no reply for the same. He also sought for clarification by his letters dated 15.1.2001, 16.1.2001, 18.1.2001 and 19.1.2001. On 19.1.2001 he went to the office at 8.00 p.m. He was called upon to meet the Registrar, the third respondent and when he met him the impugned order dated 19.1.2001 was served on him dismissing him from the third respondent Institution with immediate effect. Resolution No.117 of the Board and the findings of the Enquiry Officer were also enclosed alongwith the impugned order.