VICE CHANCELLOR ANNA UNIVERSITY MADRAS Vs. D VASANTHAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ appeal is preferred by the vice-Chancellor of Anna University and also the Registrar of the same university against the orderdated 3. 12. 1992 passed by the learned single Judge in W. M. P. No. 15377 of 1992 filed in W. P. No. 10668 of 1992. When the writ appeal came up for consideration, we considered it necessary to hear the writ petition itself, therefore W. P. No. 10668 of 1992 was directed to be posted along with the writ appeal. Accordingly, both the matters are posted before us and the same are heard together.

(2.) IN the writ petition, the petitioner who is the respondent in the writ appeal, has sought for quashing the proceedings of the vice-Chancellor of Anna University in Reference No. l4378/a3/92 dated 26. 6. 1992.

(3.) WE shall now first take up the first contention of the petitioner as to whether he can be held to have ceased to be on deputation after 5. 6. 1992. It is not disputed before us that after 5. 6. 1992, there is an order passed by the Board, continuing the deputation of the petitioner with the university. As per the order passed by the Board, the deputation period ends only on 5. 6. 1994. The last order extending the deputation has been passed on 5. 1. 1993. Even, according to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, he continues to be on deputation. The writ petition was filed on 30th July, 199 2. In paragraph No. 7 of the affidavit, the petitioner has stated thus: "i submit that I joined the Anna University as an Assistant executive Engineer on 6. 6. 1986 and was serving as such till date. To my great surprise and shock, I received a communication from the Registrar, Anna university in order No. 27715/a3/91-l, dated 12. 11. 1991 placing are under suspension with immediate effect on the ground that an enquiry into grave charges was contemplated against me. Subsequently, after a lapse of nearly 8 months, I received a charge memo mentioning certain irregularities alleged to have been committed by me vide Anna University Vice Chancellor's proceedings Ref. No. l4378/a3/92, dated 26. 6. 1992". Thus, the fact remains that the deputation of the petitioner has been continued. It is also relevant to notice in this regard that the petitioner continues to be in foreign service, until he hands over the charge to the University and takes charge of his office in the Board. Regulation 78 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations which deals with reversion from foreign service, states that, "an employee reverts from foreign service to Board' service on the date on which he takes charge of his post in the service of the board, provided that if he takes leave on the conclusion of foreign service before rejoining his post, his reversion shall take effect from such date as the Board may decide". Foreign Service has been defined in the very same service regulations as service in which an employee receives his substantative or officiating pay with the sanction of the Board from any source other than the revenues of the Board. Admittedly, the petitioner received his salary from the university and that has been sanctioned by the Electricity Board, because the board has spared his services for the University. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that the deputation of the petitioner has ceased after 5. 6. 1992.