K P KARUPPANNAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION; CHAIRMAN, GOVERNING COUNCIL, NACHIMUTHU POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE; PRINCIPAL, NACHIMUTHU POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE AND C RAMASAMY, SECRETARY, NACHIMUTHU POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed against the order of the second respondent dated 21.09.2005, wherein the second respondent has framed certain charges against the petitioner and also the order of the third respondent dated 23.09.2005, placing the petitioner under suspension.

(2.) The petitioner, who was earlier working as Associate Lecturer and subsequently promoted as Senior Lecturer in S.S.M. Institute of Textile Technology and Polytechnic College, Kumarapalayam, Namakkal, applied for the post of Head of the Department in the second respondent college in Textile Department and he was appointed in the said post for which, the Director of Technical Education has also granted approval. After having been relieved from the earlier college on 12.04.1999, he has joined the second respondent college on the same day and he has been working without break. The second respondent after seeing the performance of the petitioner has also assigned some other tasks and he was also placed as Principle in charge. The fourth respondent has developed inimical attitude against the petitioner and started giving many memos and ultimately made a junior most selection grade Lecturer to be in charge as Principle. The petitioner was issued with the impugned charge memo on 21.09.2005, referring to the governing counsel meeting and its decision dated 20.09.2005. In the mean time, when advertisement was issued in some other college for the post of Principle, the petitioner sought for no objection certificate in the second respondent and the same has not been issued, against which the petitioner filed a writ petition.

(3.) The third respondent has also informed the petitioner that the governing counsel of the second respondent has placed the petitioner under suspension from 23.09.2005. The impugned proceedings are challenged on various grounds including that as per the regulations governing the 2nd and 3rd respondents especially regulation 9 of the Grant in Aid Code, it is the governing council, which has to pass such orders and the governing council has not been constituted as per regulation 9 of the Grant in Aid Code and therefore, the proceedings become invalid. It is also the case of the petitioner that in any event, the suspension is a prolonged one, which is continued from 23.09.2005. It is also the case of the petitioner that it is at the instance of the fourth respondent, the entire incident has taken place. The petitioner has also made it clear that as far as the management is concerned, the petitioner has no grievance, since the management is a great philanthropist and without the knowledge of the Chairman of the Board, it is at the instance of the Secretary, the impugned orders are passed.