S. SANKARARAMAKRISHNAN Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, EDUCATION. DEPARTMENT AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these writ petitions are two Advocates of this Court and the common respondents are the State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Secretary to Government, Education Department, Fort St. George, Madras-9 and the Director of Legal Studies, Law College, Madras-1. The petitioner in the former writ petition was appointed as a part-time Lecturer in the Law College, Madras, under rule 10 (a) (i) of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services, by G.O.Ms. No. 1428, Education Department, dated 18th August, 1970, while the petitioner in the latter petition was appointed in the same capacity under the same rule by G.O.Ms. No. 1834, Education Department, dated 25th October, 1971. By a Memorandum No. 35097-F2/73-7 Education dated 17th September, 1973, the first respondent herein terminated the services of the petitioners with effect from the date of relief and it is to quash this order that the two writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners herein.

(2.) Both the petitioners challenge the impugned order on the following grounds, namely: (1) that the same is mala fide; (2) that it really amounts to one of punishment and consequently the requirements of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India should have been complied with and in the p resent case, they have not been complied with; and (3) that the order is discriminatory and therefore offends Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In addition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the latter writ petition contends that the power exercised by the first respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner therein constituted a colourable exercise of power on the part of the respondents and rule 10 (a) (v) of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services is itself unconstitutional and discriminatory and is hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) In the affidavit filed in support of the former writ petition, the petitioner therein challenges the impugned order as mala fide on two specific grounds. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit, the petitioner avers that in the year 1972, the second respondent called the petitioner to his chambers in the Law College and enquired of him as to whether he had any connection with a writ petition filed by Thiru V. Selvaraj, the petitioner in the latter writ petition, against the State in respect of appointments made by the Public Service Commission without considering the requisite qualifications necessary for the post of part-time lecturer in the Law College and the petitioner immediately told the second respondent that he had no manner of connection whatever with the filing of that petition and that the second respondent should not hold that out against the petitioner in the mistaken belief that he had a hand in the same. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit, he alleges that he understood that recently in the Supreme Court, in a petition filed by the Ex-Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Thiru V. Selvaraj, the petitioner in the latter writ petition, was instructing the Counsel for the Ex-Chief Secretary in the Supreme Court and that the hearing of the said case was concluded in August, 1973; that after the impugned order was passed, the petitioner on 25th September, 1973 at 12 noon called on the second respondent at his office in the Law College Buildings and enquired of him as to what was contained in the confidential report and why his explanation had not been called for, if there was anything materially wrong with his conduct; that the second respondent refused to divulge at first the reason which was contained in the said confidential report, but later informed the petitioner that the whole matter hinged on the petitioner's conduct in Mr. Royappa's case as Counsel working for him, behind the scenes and assisting Mr. Selvaraj; that he, the petitioner, denied the allegation and requested the second respondent to intercede on his behalf; and that the second respondent-then frankly told the petitioner that while he (the second respondent) was satisfied with his (petitioner's) work, any recomendation by him then made would, not have any weight with the first respondent which had made up its mind to terminate the petitioner's services without assigning any reason whatever, for his alleged connection along With Mr. V. Selvaraj in the Royappa's case. It is with reference to these allegations that the petitioner stated in paragrpah 5 of the affidavit that the termination of his services in the above circumstances was mala fide and without any basis whatever. The petitioner further avers in the affidavit that as a matter of fact he had no connection with any Counsel who was connected with the case of Mr. Royappa; nor had he any connection with Mr. E.P. Royappa, Ex-Chief Secretary, who was a total stranger to him; and that to attribute to him such intin ate connection and to consider him as having been secretly assisting the said person against the Government was, to say the least, false and a vicious statement intended to wreck his career and divest him of his lecturership without giving him an opportunity to be heard in that behalf.