UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS Vs. MAA SELVARAASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal has been filed by the University of Madras challenging the order of the learned single Judge setting aside the order of compulsory retirement passed by the appellant University by way of punishment imposed on the respondent.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts leading to this appeal are as follows: the respondent was serving as a Professor in the Department of Tamil Language of the appellant University. When the appellant University created a Department of Contemporary Tamil Literature, on 11. 5. 1998, he was appointed as its Head. By order dated 19. 11. 1999 the respondent was placed under suspension for various acts of indiscipline. A charge memo was issued in respect of the misconduct committed by him. The charge against the respondent was that despite written instructions issued in Letter No. D. 1 (A)/te/99/10 dated 24. 2. 1999 and also in the Letter No. D. 1 (A)/te/99/392 dated 24. 2. 1999 based on the resolution of the Syndicate dated 12. 2. 1999, prohibiting any form of demonstration, fasting, meeting, etc. by the staff of the University inside the campus, the respondent led the MUTA members to observe a fast in front of the Centenary Building in connection with certain demands of MUTA on 25. 2. 1999 on which date the Syndicate was scheduled to meet. It is further alleged that after the Syndicate meeting was over, the respondent along with the other members of MUTA demanded that the Vice-Chancellor should issue promotion orders to the teachers based on the resolution of the Syndicate on the very same night (i. e. on 25. 2. 1999) however late it might be. When the Vice-Chancellor expressed his inability to do so, the respondent threatened the Vice Chancellor that he would not allow the Vice Chancellor to leave the campus. Acting on this threat, the respondent and about 25 teachers under his leadership, blocked the exit for the Vice-Chancellor's car. The Vice Chancellor was finally able to leave the premises only after 9. 00 p. m. by which time, the respondent took the demonstrators to hold a meeting in the Senate Hall. The respondent and the demonstrators vacated the premises only after 11. 30 p. m. that night after they succeeded in getting the promotion orders they wanted from the Registrar in-charge. It was further alleged that consequent on the suspension of the newly instituted Department of Contemporary Tamil Literature, the membership of the respondent in the Academic Council as well as in the Senate had ceased and he was also informed of this fact vide letter No. V. 1/acandsen/99/426 dated 24. 5. 1999. Notwithstanding this, on 13. 11. 1999, the respondent, along with Dr. S. Govindasamy, Professor, Department of Economics, PG Extension Centre, Vellore, who were not members of the Senate, unauthorisedly entered the meeting hall of the Senate when the proceedings of the Senate were in progress. In spite of the repeated directions from the Chair that the non-members of the Senate should withdraw from the hall, he did not do so and caused adjournment of the rest of the proceedings of the Senate.

(3.) AS per the resolution of the Syndicate dated 22. 10. 1999, the Vice Chancellor appointed one Sri B. Vijayaraghavan, Retired I. A. S. Officer to conduct an enquiry in respect of the charges framed. The Enquiry Officer conducted a detailed enquiry wherein the respondent also participated. The Enquiry Officer found that the charges had been proved and submitted the enquiry report to the Syndicate. The Syndicate considered the same and gave opportunity to the respondent to submit further representation. The respondent submitted a detailed representation. The Syndicate considered the same, and by the impugned resolution, the Syndicate imposed a punishment of Compulsory Retirement on the respondent. This decision of the Syndicate was duly approved by the Chancellor.