R BALASUBRAMANIAN Vs. TAMIL NADU AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is for writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the proceedings of the fourth respondent dated 7. 8. 1987 and forbear the respondents from recovering any amount from the petitioner's salary.

(2.) THE petitioner Dr. R. Balasubramanian, Associate professor, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University was selected for Ph. D. course and he was deputed for that purpose. Before joining the course, he was asked to execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000. One of the terms in the bond is that in the event of successful completion of the course, if he resigned or relieved himself from service without returning to duties within a period of three years he would pay a sum of Rs. 25,000 to the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University . THE petitioner was undergoing first and second Trimesters course. THE course teacher did not follow the prescribed rules. Hence, he wrote a letter on 31. 5. 1983 and 31. 8. 1985 to the Dean, Madras Veterinary College as well as the Professor and Head of the Department about it. After completion of three trimesters, he received a communication on 12th March, 1984 from the registrar Agricultural University, terminating the internal deputation on the ground that the petitioner failed to earn the minimum OGPA of 3. 00 at the end of third Trimester (1982 and 1985 ). In the same communication the Registrar ordered the petitioner that the period spent on deputation would be treated as leave to which he was eligible and he would not be considered for higher studies. THE said order has been passed because of the petitioner's complaint as mentioned above. On 14. 3. 1984 the petitioner gave a representation. THEreafter by the proceedings of the Dean of the Madras Veterinary College dated 26. 7. 1984, the period of deputation from 1. 3. 1983 to 7. 4. 1984 was regularised as follows: 1. E. L. for 91 days from 1. 3. 1983 to 30. 5. 1983 2. VEL on private affairs (half-pay for 89 days) from 31. 5. 1983 to 27. 8. 1983 3 MCL without L/c and without pay and allowance for 224 days from 26. 8. 1983 to 7. 4. 1984 4. . Surrender leave already sanctioned for 15-days as on 4. 12. 1983 - is treated as cancelled. In the said proceedings, the petitioner was directed to remit the excess payment on 28. 11. 1984. An appeal was preferred before the vice-Chancellor, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, which was rejected by the Registrar. THEreafter when the petitioner was working in nagercoil, he received a communication from the Director of Animal Health, enclosing the audit objection to remit a sum of Rs. 24,507. 40 immediately. Hence, the writ petition has been filed.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the recovery is under powers vested with the Dean of Madias veterinary College in item (3) of Appendix XIII of the Tamil Nadu agricultural-University Act, 1971. Regulation 32 (b) in Chapter V of the regulations is framed under Sec. 38 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University act, 1971. The Bond executed in this case is pursuant to the Regulation. Regulation 32 (c) of the Statutes is as follows: ' The detailed rules for selection and deputation and for execution of bond are given in Chapter-XIII of TNAU Rules and also as amended by the Board from time to time.' The Rules of Tamil Nadu Agricultural University were not produced before the Court When the learned counsel for the respondents produced the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Act, Statutes and Regulations published in the year 1994 corrected upto 30. 6. 1993. In the said volume rules are not provided. There is also no appendix to the Act. as is mentioned in the order dated 20. 7. 1984. There is Appendix XIII to the Regulations. It is with reference to the Administrative powers of the competent authority. In Appendix XIII item 3 relates to Associate Professors Director of Physical Education, Dy. Librarian. The power, for deputation for sending the said persons for refresher course/summer institute etc. is given to the Vice Chancellor. Apart from this, i do not find any details relating to selection for deputation and for execution of bonds. Since the power is given to the Vice-chancellor for selecting and sending the associate professor on deputation it can be assumed that he has got powers to terminate it also. 8. The question that has to be considered is whether the petitioner is liable to refund the amount paid to him during the deputation from 1. 3. 1983 to 7. 4. 1984. The Vice-Chancellor's proceedings dated 12. 3. 1984 does not say anything about it. It is simply an order cancelling the deputation dated 12. 3. 1984. The Order mentions that the internal deputation period so far spent would be treated as on leave. Based on this letter, a proposal has been sent to the Registrar by the Professor and Head of the department in his letter dated 16. 6. 1984 for regulation of the said period as in the following manner: ' EL for 91 days from 1. 3. 1983 to 30. 5. 1993 2. UEL on private affairs (half pay for 89 days) from31. 5. l983to27. 8. 1983 3. MCL LAV from 28. 8. 1983 to 7. 4. 1984 for 224 days' After the observation of the audit, the Dean has finally passed the regulation order as follows: ' l. E. L. for91 days 1. 3. 1983 to 30. 5. 1983 2. . UEL on private affairs (half pay) for 89 days from 31. 5. 1983 to 27. 8. 1983. 3. EOL without M. C. and without pay and allowance for 224 days from 28. 8. 1983 to 7. 4. 1984. 4. Surrender leave already sanctioned for 15 days as on 4. 12. 1983 is treated as cancelled.' In the said letter, that there is a mention about the excess payment to be recovered. No amount is mentioned in the letter of the dean dated 26. 7. 1984. In the letter dated 29. 6. 1984 of the Director of Animal health, it is seen that the excess amount of Rs. 24,501. 40 is to be recovered. It is mentioned that the said sum represents, the excess payment for the period from 31. 5. 1983 to 27. 8. 1983 and 28. 8. 1983 to 7. 4. 1984. The same amount is mentioned in the letter dated 1. 7. 1987 also. It is not clear as to what is the amount that is sought to be recovered from the petitioner, what is meant by the excess amount paid and whether any extra amount was paid to the petitioner during the deputation apart from salary or not is not mentioned in any proceedings. So we have to assume that what is sought to be termed as excess amount is the salary what was paid to the petitioner during the deputation. If so, the recoveries are not for any breach of the conditions contained in the bond. If the petitioner had been paid the salary during the deputation, the same cannot be recovered unless the rules of deputation specifically provided for the same. Even though the Regulation 32 (c) of the Act contemplates that the detailed rules for selection, deputation and for execution of bonds, no rules appear to have been framed. Such rules are not found in the Act. Regulations or Statutes of Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Act, 1971. The petitioner cannot be said to have deliberately failed to obtain the necessary gpa. It is also not the case of the respondent that he has failed to attend the course. He has also applied for permission to continue his course and complete it. He has also given reason for not earning the GPA at the end of the third trimester. Therefore, in my view, there is no justification for recovering the amount from the salary of the petitioner. The writ petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs. .