SUNDARARAJ Vs. DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is aggrieved against the order of termination passed by the Third Respondent as confirmed by the First Respondent. The case of the Petitioner is that he was appointed as 'Lab Assistant' at the Third Respondent-College on 20.3.1989. One Amali filed a Criminal case against the Petitioner under Section 498-A of IPC before the All Women Police Station, Tirunelveli, in Crime No. 35 of 1994 on 14.11.1994. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, taken the matter on file in C.C. No. 134 of 1995. After trial, the Petitioner was convicted on 26.12.1996. After the said conviction, the said Amali gave a Complaint to the Third Respondent on 8.1.1997, informing that the Criminal case ended in conviction. Therefore, the Third Respondent placed the Petitioner under suspension on 8.1.1997. He also issued a Charge Memo to the Petitioner on 21.10.1997. The Petitioner gave an explanation on 5.12.1997. The Third Respondent conducted an enquiry and prepared a report on 27.3.1998. On the very same day, the Third Respondent issued a second show-cause notice to the Petitioner, calling upon him to show-cause as to why he should not be terminated from service. The Petitioner submitted his reply on 22.4.1998. In the meantime, the Petitioner preferred an Appeal against the Judgment made in C.C. No. 34 of 1995, before the Additional Sessions Court, Tirunelveli. On 21.6.1998, the Appeal was allowed. The defacto Complainant filed a Revision in Crl.R.C. No. 524 of 1998, before the High Court. The said Revision was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the Appellate Court for fresh disposal. After remand, the Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal filed by the Petitioner in C.A. No. 10 of 1997. The Petitioner preferred a Revision against the said order in Crl.R.C. No. 752 of 2000 before this Court. In the Revision, this Court passed an order sentencing the Petitioner to undergo imprisonment till the raising of the Court and pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and further directed that the said defacto Complainant-Amah to receive a sum of Rs. 90,000/- as compensation, out of the said Rs. 1,00,000/- fine amount. Accordingly, the Petitioner had undergone the sentence and deposited the fine amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- before the Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor on 31.7.2002. On the very same day, the said Amali had withdrawn Rs. 90,000/- as compensation. The Petitioner also preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in No. 3953 of 2002. By an order, dated 23.9.2002, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition with an observation that the validity of the marriage in a Criminal prosecution under Section 498-A, I.P.C. may not be binding on the parties in other proceedings. After the dismissal of the Petitioner's Special Leave Petition, the Third Respondent once again issued a second Show-Cause Notice on 17.11.2003 to the Petitioner. An explanation was submitted by him on 15.12.2003. After obtaining the approval from the Second Respondent, the Petitioner was dismissed from service on 7.6.2005, by the proceedings of the Third Respondent. The Petitioner preferred an Appeal before the First Respondent on 23.6.2005 and the same was dismissed by an order, dated 7.2.2006. Therefore, the Petitioner is before this Court.

(2.) The Writ Petition was admitted by this Court on 1.9.2006 and notice was ordered to the Respondents. The Third Respondent did not appear either in person or through Counsel. The Respondents 1 & 2 filed a Counter Affidavit and stated that the Third Respondent-College is an aided college. The college committee of the Third Respondent-College is empowered to appoint teachers and other persons and take disciplinary action against them. The Third Respondent-College sought permission for the termination of the service of the Petitioner due to his involvement in the Criminal case and the punishment awarded by the Court. The Petitioner was awarded punishment to undergo imprisonment till the raising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. By the order of the High Court in Crl.R.C. No. 752 of 2000, the Petitioner had undergone the sentence and paid the fine amount. The Petitioner married one Vasantha on 31.10.1998 as second wife, The said Amali filed Criminal case against the Petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Tirunelveli. By an order, dated 17.6.2004, the learned Judicial Magistrate convicted the Petitioner and awarded imprisonment till the raising of the Court with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. This fact is not disclosed by the Petitioner in the Affidavit. A proposal sent by the college was considered in detail and after perusing the entire file, the permission was granted to the Management to terminate the service of the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P. (MD) No. 4693 of 2005, challenging the order granting permission to terminate him from service. The said Writ Petition was dismissed by this Court on 14.6.2005. The Petitioner had suppressed all the above said facts while filing this Writ Petition before this Court.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the entire proceedings initiated by the Third Respondent-College against the Petitioner are vitiated on the sole ground that no one can be a Judge of in his own cause. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Charge Memo was issued by the Third Respondent and the enquiry was also conducted by himself. Apart from that, the order of termination also came to be passed only by the Third Respondent. In the absence of any independent enquiry officer or committee, conducting an enquiry by the college committee itself is against the said principle. It is also stated by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that no opportunity was given to the Petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses. He further contended that the Educational Authorities were not placed with materials for granting approval for passing the order of termination. The documents circulated to the Educational Authorities seeking for approval are in respect of subsequent events and not in respect of the subject matter of Charge Memo. The approval was granted only based on the Criminal conviction and opinion of the Government Pleader. The learned Counsel further submitted that when a second Show-Cause Notice was issued, it referred, as if, action is being taken uninfluenced by the Criminal Court proceedings. However, the impugned order of termination came to be passed only based on the Criminal Court's conviction. He further submitted that the impugned order of termination does not refer about the departmental enquiry and materials collected during such enquiry. The learned Counsel further submitted that the said Amali also got divorced on 16.4.2004 from the Petitioner in H.M.O.P. No. 94 of 2003 and therefore, the punishment is disproportionate.