SARADHA BALAKRISHNAN Vs. DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE parties to the writ petitions are same and the questions which arise for consideration are also the same, though the prayers are slightly different. In W. P. No. 2612 of 1986 the prayer is for issue of a certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order in RC. No. 44076/a7/84. dated 13. 3. 1986 on the file of the first respondent (the director of Collegiate Education, Madras), to quash the same and to direct the first respondent to direct the second respondent, viz. , the Secretary seethalakshmi Achi College for Women, Pallathur, to reinstate the petitioner as principal with all attendant benefits. THE prayer in W. P. No. 3003 of 1986 is similar excepting that it seeks to have the consequential order of the second respondent in his proceedings No. S/85-86/65 dated 17. 3. 1986 to be quashed in addition to the prayers in the other writ petition.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of the two writ petitions are as follows: THE petitioner entered the service of Seethalakshmi Achi college for Women, Pallathur, hereinafter referred to as'the college', as English Professor in 1963. She was promoted as Principal of the College in 1966. THEre were some proceedigs between the petitioner on the one hand and the Management on the other, which are not relevant to this case. Hence, we are not making any reference to them. On 26. 6. 1984 a charge memo was issued to the petitioner by the college committee giving her seven days to give her explanation. Along with it, an order of suspension was also issued to her. In the memo dated 26. 6. 1984 it is stated that the charge memo was placed before the college committee and initiatled by the Chairman for the sake of identification containing various charges which the committee had examined in detail and found in order. THE Secretary of the Colleges was authorised to appoint an Enquiry Officer to go into the charges, conduct an enquiry and present his finidings before the committee for further action. THE Secretary was also authorised to simultaneously suspend the petitioner from service pending enquiry considering the gravity of the charges framed against her. It is not necessary to give the details of the charges, but suffice it to point out that some of them are very grave charges. For example charge No. 1, is that the petitioner unauthorisedly brought her husband who is an officer in L. I. C. of India, Pudukottai and a police officer to the college office!, after having filed a vexatious and frivolous complaint on the Secretary, totally distorting twisting and hiding facts, acts and information and actively instigating and intensely provoking the Inspector of Police, Pallattur, accompanied by a large force of constabulary, both in uniform and mufti, to act in an extremely high-handed, brazen, unwarranted, untowardly manner and attempted at peremptorily ordering the arrest of the Secretary without even giving him an elementary and basic opportunity to explain his stand. Charge No. 6 is that she demanded and received amounts of money from the Teaching Staff for the specific purpose of obtaining approval of appointment from concerned authorities. It is not necessary to refer to the other charges.

(3.) ON 13. 10. 1984, the petitioner sent a communication to the Secretary expressing her regret that she could not make herself a willing party to the report of the sub-committee as the report was one sided and arbitrary and it was made after having set her ex parte. She also stated that she intended to take up the matter before the appropriate authorities and the charges framed against her were all false and she was not liable for any punishment whatever. The college committee met on 16. 10. 1984. After considering the report and also the evidence and the materials on record, the College committee passed the following resolution: 'the members of the committee considered the report of enquiry dated 3. 10. 1984 giving out the finding and setting out the proposed punishment and the statement of defence dated 13. 10. 1984 received from mrs. Sarada Balakrishnan by the Secretary ON 15. 10. 1984. Mrs. G. Saroja Subbaraj, after going through all the proceedings of the sub-committee; all the marked and unmarked exhibits, depositions, of M. W. 1 to M. W. 9, 3. 10. 1984 report of findings and proposed punishment, Secretary's covering letter dated 7. 10. 1984 addressed to Mrs. Sarada Balakrishnan and her reply of statement of defence dated 13. 10. 1984, though well aware of the genuineness of all the facts of the matter under enquiry, expressed her desire to refrain from exercising her right to vote in this matter, as she felt delicate to do so. The other eight members, thereafter, unanimously resolved that the report of the enquiry dated 3. 10. 1984, conducted by the sub-committee in the matter of the charge memo dated 26. 6. 1984 against Mrs. Sarada balakrishnan, setting out the findings and also the proposed punishment be and is hereby accepted and adopted and, Further resolved that, in view of the grave and serious misconduct committed by Mrs. Sarada Balakrishnan, proved at the enquiry held by the sub-committee and accepted and adopted by the committee, Mrs. Sarada balakrishnan be dismissed from service forthwith and that the Secretary be and is hereby authorised to make an application the Director of Collegiate education, Madras seeking his prior approval for the abovesaid dismissal and on receipt of such approval to communicate the same to Mrs. Sarada Balakrishnan.'