ROBART Vs. DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in proceedings No. SJC/2831/c/2000, dated 31. 5. 2001, and the first respondent's proceedings RC. No. 27671/f4/2001, dated 12. 2. 2002, and to set aside the order of the second respondent, dated 31. 5. 2001, as affirmed by the first respondent by order, dated 12. 2. 2002, and consequently to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Lecturer in Malayalam in the second respondent College with arrears of salary and all consequential benefits. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are as follows:

(2.) THE petitioner had been appointed as a Lecturer in Malayalam in St. Judge's College, Thoothoor, in Kanyakumari District, with effect from 28. 6. 1995. While so, the petitioner had sought for a day's leave, on 31. 7. 2000, and he had submitted his leave letter to the Head of the Department. Thereafter, he had applied for six months of no pay leave, from 31. 7. 2000. However, the Principal had refused to grant leave. Instead, the petitioner was placed under suspension, from 31. 7. 2000. By the proceedings, dated 19. 9. 2000, he was issued a show cause notice by the second respondent to explain as to why the disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him for the alleged charges. The first charge against the petitioner was that he had remained on unauthorised absence from 31. 7. 2000 and the second charge was that the petitioner had eloped with a former girl student and that he had allegedly married her. The petitioner had submitted his explanation to the charge memo and it was pointed out that he had sought for leave by means of a letter and subsequently, by way of a telegram. The petitioner's request had been refused by the second respondent. The petitioner had also denied the charge that he had eloped with the former girl student and that he had not committed the unethical act, which would harm the reputation of the Institution. With regard to the third charge, the petitioner had stated that, on 22. 8. 2000, when he was taking rest in his house, one Harry Pereira along with some antisocial elements had forcibly taken the petitioner and had coerced him into affixing his signature on a document in the Office of the concerned Sub-Registrar. The petitioner had later learnt that the document was a deed of agreement to marry one Reeja. Therefore, the petitioner had not committed any wrong and the proceedings against him was to be dropped.

(3.) IT had been further stated that despite the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the second respondent had appointed K. Mohanan Nair as the Enquiry Officer to enquire into the alleged charges. The Management examined the Correspondent, the petitioner's father-in-law and the Secretary of the College, as witnesses.