R JAYARAMAN Vs. MADURAI KAMARAJ UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER in the writ petition is to quash the resolution item No. 60 dated 6. 9. 2007 passed by the Syndicate of Madurai Kamaraj University placing the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry into charges framed against him subject to the approval of the Chancellor of Madurai Kamaraj University.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he formed an association, a registered Public Charitable Trust called 'centre for Entrepreneurship Development' (hereinafter called 'ced'), which was registered in the year 1990, originally functioned under the Department of Entrepreneurship Studies of Madurai Kamaraj University. According to the petitioner, the Syndicate passed a resolution on 25. 10. 1993 de-linking CED from the University and the said CED became an independent body. The Syndicate also passed a resolution on 30. 11. 1993 permitting the petitioner to continue to serve as Honorary Secretary of the said Trust and according to the petitioner the said resolution was withdrawn only on 25. 8. 2006. Due to the activities of the petitioner in the said Trust, the Syndicate passed resolution against the petitioner and the said actions were challenged by the petitioner and one Lakshmanan before this Court in W. P. Nos. 10711 of 2005, 7733 and 8120 of 2006 and W. A. No. 394 of 2006 and a Division Bench of this Court by common Judgment dated 25. 6. 2007 dismissed the writ petitions filed by the petitioner.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as against the said judgment, SLP No. 14746 of 2007 was filed and without ordering notice to the University, the counsel for the University was directed to file counter. When the matter was pending before the Supreme Court, the University resorted to pass the impugned resolution placing the petitioner under suspension subject to the approval of the Chancellor. The said order is challenged in this writ petition on the ground that interim suspension is not warranted since the events took place way back in the year 1999 and the jurisdictional issue of the respondent University being pending before the Supreme Court, there is no justification at this point of time to pass the impugned resolution and there is no necessity to pass the order of suspension since the petitioner is on leave and the action of the Syndicate is vindictive and stigmatic in nature.