N M S KAMARAJ POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE Vs. DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION O O DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Management praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings No. 810/x2/96-1 dated 20. 12. 2003 on the file of the Director of Technical Education, Office of the Directorate of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai (the first respondent herein) and to quash the same in so far as it relates to the reduction of the punishment imposed upon the second respondent by the petitioner.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the second respondent was a Lecturer in the Electrical and Electronics Engineering Departments of the petitioner Polytechnic; that charges were framed against five persons including the second respondent herein on the ground that one of the Lecturers by name Premkumar molested one of the girl students of the Polytechnic promising to marry her and also committed rape on her; that so far as the second respondent is concerned he aided the said Premkumar who is the culprit, by duping the girl to get herself in contact with the said Premkumar; that the above said charges were proved; that on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer, a show cause notice was issued to the second respondent and the then Correspondent of the petitioner Polytechnic dismissed both the main culprit and the second respondent herein; that both the persons went on appeal before the first respondent Appellate Authority; that so far as the factual findings are concerned, the Appellate Authority concurred with the Enquiry Officer and also the Disciplinary Authority; but so far as the second respondent is concerned, the appellate authority though concurred with the factual findings, having thought that the punishment imposed on the second respondent is excess has decided to reduce the punishment by modifying the same by stoppage of two increments for two years with cumulative effect and hence, the Management-Petitioner Polytechnic has come forward with the present writ petition.

(3.) THE first respondent in his counter-affidavit would submit that the petitioner Polytechnic is a Government Aided institution and the Government Aided institutions are governed by grant-in-Aid Code; that the first respondent is empowered to make any amendment in the Grant-in-Aid-Code; that the second respondent who was a Lecturer in the petitioner Polytechnic was dismissed from service on 22. 06. 1995 by the petitioner on the allegation that he was instrumental in duping a girl student M. V. Kala to get herself into sexual contact with another teacher P. Premkumar who molested her; that the petitioner dismissed the second respondent herein from service by his proceedings dated 20. 01. 2003 with retrospective effect from 17. 06. 1995 being the date of suspension in Proceedings No. NMSKP/2121/a2/95, dated 20. 01. 2003; that since the order of dismissal should not be issued retrospectively, the first respondent instructed the petitioner to revise the dismissal order; that accordingly the petitioner issued revised orders to the second respondent dismissing him from service with prospective effect that is from 20. 01. 2003; that the second respondent preferred an appeal before the first respondent on 10. 02. 2003 against the orders of dismissal issued by the petitioner; that the second respondent had also filed a case before this Court in W. P. No. 8801 of 2003 and obtained a direction instructing the first respondent to dispose of his appeal petition within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order; that thereafter the second respondent filed another appeal before the first respondent on 21. 04. 2003; that the first respondent called for the records of the disciplinary proceedings from the petitioner and examined the case with utmost care and found that the second respondent had been initially imposed with the penalty of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect in proceedings No. NMSKP/2121/a2/95 dated 16. 07. 1999; that at that juncture, the members of the management institution left the office and the new members of management took over the office; that the new management without considering the orders passed by their predecessor did not allow the second respondent to join duty and prolonged his suspension period and finally on 20. 01. 2003, passed the orders of dismissal to the second respondent; that the first respondent examined the appeal petition and found that even though the charges framed against the second respondent were proved, the punishment awarded to him by the petitioner was excessive; that as an Appellate Authority, the first respondent has the power to confirm, reduce, enhance or set aside the penalty; that exercising this power, the first respondent has reduced the punishment of dismissal from service to that of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect for two years, and the period of punishment would also include his eligible leave; that the said order was passed on 20. 12. 2003; that the order passed by the first respondent is in order and in accordance with rules; that the Appellate Authority is at liberty to modify the punishment if it is deemed fit and with the above averments, he prays for the dismissal of the writ petition.