N LINGAPPAN Vs. SYNDICATE ANNA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the third respondent dated 15. 11. 2000 in and by which the third respondent has intimated the petitioner by considering the letter of the petitioner dated 5. 5. 2000, stating that his appeal against the punishment imposed on him has been placed before the Syndicate of the Anna University on 18. 10. 2000 and the syndicate resolved to uphold the decisions of the Vice-Chancellor regarding the punishment imposed on the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner is working as an Assistant Professor of chemistry, M. I.T. , Campus, Chennai, having been transferred from G. C. T. ,Coimbatore to Anna University . It is the case of the petitioner that the fourth respondent, Head of the department of Chemistry of Anna University has given a complaint on 30. 9. 1998 to the third respondent against the petitioner stating that on the said date, when a Research scholar Mr. S. Rengarraj was usinge-mail facilities in connection with the symposium, the fourth respondent's son M. Aravind Velayutham who also happens to be the I year B.E. , student, came to the department with his friend one D. Chidambaram, the petitioner entered into the office of the fourth respondent and shouted at them and forcibly kept them outside the room and locked them outside. He also threatened the son of the fourth respondent and his friend. THEre was a preliminary enquiry constituted by the third respondent consisting of Dr. S. Natarajan , Deen as a Convener, apart from Dr. M. Abdullah Khan and Dr. R. Asokamani , members to conduct an enquiry about the alleged misbehaviour of the petitioner with the staff and students. THE said fourth respondent appears to have given another complaint to the third respondent on 16. 10. 1998, complaining that he has suspicion that the petitioner has written anonymous telegram to the Registrar in respect of the selection of a Lecturer and also imputing that the petitioner has received money in respect of a selection, etc. THEre was another complaint on 26. 10. 1998 of an anonymous letter sent to the general Manager. M. R.L. , Chennai in respect of the symposium and the allegation is that the said letter has been stated to have been written by the petitioner. In respect of the complaint of the fourth respondent dated 30. 9. 1998, as stated above, the enquiry committee constituted by the third respondent has gone into the said complaint and filed a report dated 18. 11. 1998 finding that in respect of two incidents whereby the research scholar and the student were threatened in the room of the Head of Department and the anonymous letter addressed to Dr. S. P. Elangovan dated 29. 9. 1998 were proved to have been done by the petitioner and the committee has recommended severe disciplinary action to curb the said misbehaviour. It was thereafter, a charge sheet was framed against the petitioner dated 14. 1. 1999, framing two charges with necessary materials and directing the petitioner to submit his explanation. Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted his explanation dated 5. 4. 1999 denying the charges. Mr. P. Murugan , Advocate was appointed as an enquiry officer to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner and enquiry officer has submitted his report on 23. 11. 1999. A provisional conclusion was arrived at by the Vice-Chancellor, agreeing with the enquiry officer's report to withhold the increment of the petitioner for two years without cumulative effect and the petitioner was directed to submit his explanation. THE petitioner has also submitted his explanation on 31. 1. 2000. Ultimately, by an order dated 3. 3. 2000, the second respondent Vice-Chancellor, being the competent authority to impose punishment has confirmed the provisional conclusion and awarded the punishment of withholding of two years increment without cumulative effect. In the said order, the second respondent has also stated that an appeal lies against the punishment to the Syndicate within sixty days. Accordingly, the petitioner has preferred an appeal to the Chairman of the Syndicate in his appeal dated 5. 5. 2000 and admittedly the Syndicate after considering the appeal has confirmed the order of punishment imposed by the second respondent as communicated by the third respondent in the impugned proceedings dated 15. 11. 2000.

(3.) ACCORDING to the writ petitioner, inasmuch as said clause contemplates that when an appeal is filed, the appellate authority shall consider whether the facts on which the order was placed has been established, as to whether such facts shall afford sufficient ground for taking action and as to whether the penalty given by the punishing authority is excessive, adequate or inadequate. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, there should be some evidence to show that the first respondent Syndicate has in fact considered while passing the order as an appellate authority. The learned counsel also submitted that as per the Statutes of Anna University, the vice-Chancellor is the ex-officio Chairman of the Syndicate, as seen from section 17 (3) of the Anna University Act, 1978 ( Tamilnad u Act 30 of 1978 ).