P. KUMARI Vs. REGISTRAR, PONDICHERRY UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ petition is filed to call for the records relating to impugned Charge Memorandum vide Ref.No.PU/ESTT/NT3/II-8/2019-2020/204 dtd. 29/11/2009 1st issued by the respondent and consequential proceedings vide PU/OSD/V&S/2020-21/991, dtd. 3/12/2020, issued by the 4th respondent and quash the same.

(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed as Attender (Group-D Staff) at Pondicherry University in the year 1991. The petitioner was later transferred to the Examination Wing (DDE) from Examination Wing (Regular). On 9/4/2019, the second respondent issued an Office Order transferring the petitioner from the Examination Wing (DDE) to the Department of Economics. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation on 10/4/2019, requesting to reconsider the Transfer Order. On 11/4/2019, the petitioner received the Relieving Order dtd. 10/4/2019, and the petitioner in pursuance of the same reported for duty in the Department of Economics, Pondicherry University and assumed charge. Whileso, the third respondent vide letter dtd. 24/4/2019, directed the petitioner to handover the files, keys, ledger etc to Mr.S.Gothandapany, Junior Assistant, DDE (Exam) on or before 26/4/2019. In response to the said letter, the petitioner immediately, on 25/4/2019, formally handed over the files, keys, ledger etc. to the said S.Gothandapany, Junior Assistant, DDE (Exam). The petitioner communicated the same to the third respondent vide letter dtd. 26/4/2019. On 25/6/2019, the second respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, calling for her explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against her, for the charges of insubordination and irregularities and the petitioner submitted her reply on 1/7/2018. Thereafter, the impugned charge memo dtd. 29/11/2019, framing two charges for insubordination and irregularities was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation to the charge memo on 21/1/2020, thereafter the fourth respondent issued a communication to the petitioner intimating that the enquiry was initiated. Meanwhile, on 3/6/2020, the petitioner applied under the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking certain documents mentioned in Annexure III of the charge memo which were not furnished to her. The RTI application was disposed of by the Public Information Officer, Administrative officer, Pondicherry University, on 7/7/2020. Thereafter, the petitioner was called upon to nominate Defence Assistant. The petitioner requested time to engage the Defence Assistant vide letter dtd. 23/9/2020. The fourth respondent issued a reminder letter requesting the petitioner to appoint Defence Assistant. The petitioner again sent a representation on 10/11/2020, seeking copies of relevant documents and further time to appoint Defence Assistant to defend the charges levelled against her. The fourth respondent thereafter passed the impugned order dtd. 3/12/2020, informing the petitioner that an ex-parte enquiry would be initiated, as inspite of several reminders the petitioner did not appoint the Defence Assistant. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation on 8/12/2020, requesting to set aside the ex-parte proceedings and to provide all materials so as to enable her to participate in the enquiry and defend her case properly. At this stage, the petitioner filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.

(3.) The respondents filed a detailed counter contending among other grounds that the writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice/ charge memo as at that stage the writ petition would be premature. The respondents relied on several Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to contend that a mere charge memo could not be a subject matter of challenge as it did not adversely affect the rights of the petitioner. The respondents submitted that the petitioner was guilty of insubordination and therefore, the charge memo was rightly issued. The respondents submitted that several opportunities were given to the petitioner for appointing a Defence Assistant, but the petitioner inspite of multiple reminders did not appoint the Defence Assistant, and therefore it was decided to conduct an ex-parte enquiry. The respondent further submitted that the petitioner in the guise of non-production of certain documents, conveniently delayed the disciplinary proceedings and therefore, the respondents submitted that there were absolutely no merits in the writ petition and the same deserved to be dismissed.