M GOPAL Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts of the two, cases as culled out from the affidavits are set out below:i) THE petitioner joined the services of the Salem Sowdeswari College as Assistant Professor of English in the year 1976 and since then he was discharging his duties without any blemish. THE respondent& College was always in the habit of targeting him and foisting false charges against him. Hence every time he had to approach this Court for redressal. In order to victimize him the fourth respondent, in the capacity as Secretary, has suspended him by an impugned order dated 1.12.2004. Prior to the suspension order, he was issued with two charge sheets dated 28.10.2004 and 29.11.2004 containing various allegations. He submitted a detailed explanation denying the charges and requested the College Committee to furnish him with the necessary documents on the charges. But the respondent did not comply with his request. By an order dated 27.12.2004 the Secretary appointed the Enquiry Officer, who is an outsider and the petitioner was asked to submit his objections. On 30.12.2004, he submitted a detailed explanation to the Secretary.ii) THE petitioner in his affidavit has referred to various acts and omissions on the part of the fourth respondent, which according to the petitioner amounts to acts of victimization. THE petitioner has averred that he has filed W.P.Nos.2514 and 7248 of 1994 and W.P.No.16558 of 1998 whenever the petitioner was illegally punished. It is further averred in the affidavit that since the petitioner sent representations regarding the Secretary's illegalities to the competent authorities, the Secretary with an ulterior motive of sacking the petitioner from the College and that too when he was on the verge of retirement has foisted false charges. iii) It is the further case of the petitioner that the charge against the petitioner that teaching was not done properly on 4.10.2004 by the Joint Director of Collegiate Education is not correct as he is not the regular visitor to the College. THE unwarranted and adverse remark made by the Joint Director of Collegiate Education when he visited the college on 4.10.2004 has been used as one of the charges against the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that he understood that the Joint Director of Collegiate Education has directed the Secretary not to act on the formers letter dated 5.10.2004. THE petitioner was to attain superannuation on 30.6.2005 and since it was during the middle of the academic year as per practice, the petitioner should have been allowed to continue in service till the end of the academic year 2005& 2006. iv) But in the meantime as per the minutes dated 30.5.2005, the College Committee had decided to impose the punishment of stoppage of 3 months wages and treating the period of suspension from 1.2.2004 to 28.2.2005 as punishment. It is the case of the& petitioner that on the date of the filing of W.P. No.31542 of 2005, the resolution passed by the College Committee was served on him.v) It is the further case of the petitioner that as per G.O.Ms.No.281 dated 13.2.1981, the petitioner was entitled to continue in service till the end of the academic year 2005& 2006, as he attained superannuation during the middle of the academic year i.e. on 30.6.2005.vi) It is the case of the petitioner that the G.O. does not specify that the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings or the inflictment of punishment on a teacher will be a bar to continue the said teacher on re& employment till the end of the next academic year in case the teacher retires in the middle of the academic year. THE petitioner has further stated in the affidavit that one Rajagopalan, Head of the Department of Economics of the same College was deprived of the service benefits available under the G.O.Ms.No.281 dated 13.2.1981 and hence he filed W.P.No.10192 of 1996 to permit him to continue in service till the end of the academic year 1996& 97 as he was to retire on 30.6.1996 and by an order dated 28.2.2002 this Court allowed the writ petition and the College was directed to pay wages for the said academic year as he was wrongly prevented from continuing in service. It is the further case of the petitioner that during the academic year 2005& 2006 three professors, including the petitioner, were to retire, but while the two professors were permitted to continue till the end of the academic year, the petitioner was deprived of that benefit. It is the case of the petitioner that he has expressed his intention to continue in service till the end of the academic year 2005& 2006 by his representations. But because he has challenged the illegal action of the fourth respondent, the fourth respondent relieved the petitioner from service in the afternoon of 30.6.2005 by his letter No.563-A2-2005, as the decision to retire him on that date had already been taken and the same finds place in the minutes of the College Committee dated 29.4.2005. According to the petitioner, the action of the fourth respondent in relieving the petitioner from service, denying re& employment till the end of the next academic year is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.281 dated 13.2.1981 and also the order of this Court passed in W.P.No.4251 of 1995 and W.P.No.10192 of 1996.vii) It is the further case of the petitioner that one V. Venkatesan, Professor of Commerce who attained superannuation on 31.7.2005 and who suffered a punishment of increment cut has been given the benefit of re& employment and permitted to continue in service for the academic year 2005& 2006 and therefore the action of respondents 3 and 4 amounts to victimization and discrimination. It is also the case of the petitioner that the fourth respondent did not forward the petitioner's pension papers as well as proposals for re& employment to the competent authorities. It is the further case of the petitioner that since he was denied re& employment he filed W.P.No.20613 of 2005 for a mandamus directing the third and fourth respondents to continue in service in the fourth respondent College and the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Director and Joint Director of Collegiate Education to consider his case as per Government Orders and also taking into account the proceedings of the second respondent dated 30.6.2005 and the report of the fourth respondent.viii) It is the further case of the petitioner that the fourth respondent represented before the Court in the other proceedings that the proposal to continue the petitioner in service on re& employment basis had been forwarded to the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, but no orders has been passed. But in the impugned order dated 5.9.2005 which denied the right of re& employment to the petitioner, it is mentioned that the fourth respondent has not forwarded the proposals for his re& employment.ix) Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 5.9.2005, W.P.No.13542 of 2005 has been filed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned proceedings of the third respondent bearing Na.Ka.No.5539/Aa4& 2005 dated 5.9.2005 as illegal and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.281 dated 13.2.1981 and as clarified by the proceedings of the Commissioner of Collegiate Education backing in Rc.No.48914/G/3/1995 dated 14.9.1995 and consequently direct the fourth respondent to continue the petitioner in service till the end of the academic year 2005& 2006.x) Aggrieved by the above said charge sheets dated 28.10.2004 and 29.11.2004 and the consequential suspension order dated 1.12.2004, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.1809 of 2005 for the above said reliefs.xi) THE impugned proceedings are challenged on the following substantial legal grounds:(a) As per Section 14(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the College Committee alone can take disciplinary action against teachers and other persons of the private College and in this case, the Secretary has usurped the disciplinary powers of the College Committee and has initiated disciplinary action against the petitioner on his own volition and hence the impugned charge sheets dt.28. 10.2004 and 29.11.2004 and the order of suspension dt.1. 12. 2004 are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.(b) When there is no provision under the 1976 Act or the Rules made there under for the College Committee to delegate its disciplinary powers or to ratify the disciplinary action taken by the Secretary, the action taken by the fourth respondent Secretary is illegal and hence unsustainable.(c) THE College Committee has failed in discharging its statutory duties by ratifying the disciplinary actions taken by the Secretary who had issued letters to him calling for explanations and then delegating its disciplinary powers to the Secretary to proceed further and take whatever action he deemed fit in this matter. Hence the two charge sheets dated 28.10.2004 and 29.11.2004 and the order of suspension dated 1.12.2004 are without legal backing.

(2.) THOUGH no counter affidavit has been filed by the fourth and fifth respondents in W.P.No.1809 of 2005, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed in W.P.No.31542 of 2005. The learned counsel for the fourth and fifth respondents submitted that since W.P.No.1809 of 2005 has been filed mainly on the ground that the fourth respondent viz., the Secretary of the College initiated the disciplinary action against the petitioner on his own and therefore the said proceedings are without jurisdiction and the said ground is based on the relevant provisions of the Act and since a counter affidavit has been filed in W.P.No.31542 of 2005 no separate counter affidavit is being filed in respect of the averments and allegations made in the affidavit filed in W.P.No.1809 of 2005. On behalf of respondents 1 to 3 also, no counter affidavit has been filed in W.P.No.1809 of 2005, but a detailed counter affidavit has been filed in W.P.No.31542 of 2005. Written submissions have been filed on behalf of the fourth respondent.

(3.) THE petitioner has filed a common reply affidavit in W.P Nos.1809 and 31542 of 2005:It is stated in the reply affidavit that no punishment whatsoever has been inflicted on the petitioner in the past disciplinary proceedings and earlier charges were dropped. THE other allegations made against the petitioner have been denied by the petitioner.