BASKARAN Vs. COMMISIONER OF COLLEGE EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. INTRODUCTION. This application is to review the order in W. A. No. 1256 of 1992 dated 17-12-1993 and for setting aside the judgment as illegal, imcompetent and without jurisdiction. The petitioner herein (hereinafter referred to as'the applicant') was not a party to the appeal. He obtained permission to file the present review application in C. M. P. No. 6622 of 1995. The Bench, which granted permission on 27-4-199 5 , made it clear in the order that the same was subject to the rights of the respondents object to the same, if so advised.

(2.) THE third respondent in the application is the contesting respondent and he will be referred to herein as'the third respondent'. He was the petitioner in W. P. No. 18609 of 1991, which has generated the Writ Appeal and the present application. THE first respondent herein is the Commissioner of Collegiate Education while the second respondent is the Management of S. B. K. College, Aruppukkottai. THE second respondent is a private aided college. B. HISTORY

(3.) AFTER the receipt of the explanation dated 27-1-1985 sent by the third respondent, the Management of the College was making appropriate enquiries and gathering information in order to take proceedings against the third respondent by way of disciplinary action. The Secretary to the College sent a communieation dated 3-1-1989 to the Director of Collegiate education detailing the steps taken by the College for initiating proceedings against the third respondent. The third respondent sent a communication on 27. 3. 1989 to the Management requesting for necessary action to facilitate his joining duty at the earliest. He also sent a representation to the Counsel (Labour), Consulate General of India, Dubai (U. A. E.) on 15. 4. 1989 which was forwarded to the Secretary to the College along with a covering letter dated 19. 4. 1989. Even in the said representation the third respondent had not chosen to give any explanation as to why he did not get the prior permission of the concerned authority for working abroad, after taking leave on loss of pay for personal reasons. On 17. 5. 1989 the third respondent wrote to the Secretary to the College informing him that he would meet the address in the first week of july 1989 to enlighten the matter. It should be mentioned that till that date, the third respondent had not given his address at Dubai in any of his communications, but on the other hand had given only some address or other in india, as if he was staying in India during that period. In the said letter, for the first time, the third respondent alleged that he availed extra-ordinary leave on loss of pay for personal affairs from the Managing Board of the college, that he explained his desire to go to Dubai on an assignment to the members of the Managing Committee on 3-3-1981 in the college premises and that the Managing Board had sanctioned his leave after being convinced. Such an averment was not found in any of the earlier communications sent by the third respondent including his reply dated 27. 1. 1985 to the Charge Memo dated 7. 1. 1985.