C B M COLLEGES Vs. V R PALANISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ appeal has been filed by the College management against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 7. 10. 1991 in W. P. No. 9635 of 1983, whereunder the learned single Judge was pleaded to allow the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein seeking for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings of the second respondent herein Private Colleges Appellate Tribunal dated 29. 7. 1983 in T. A. C. No. 6 of 1982, wherein the Tribunal has chosen to allow the appeal filed by the appellant- Management by setting aside the order of the State government, holding that the orders of the appellant Management dated 23. 3. 1981 relieving the first respondent from the post of Head Clerk of the College, is bad in law and directed reinstatement in service with immediate effect.

(2.) THE first respondent herein has joinedthe services of the appellant- College ever since its inception and due to certain unpleasant happening of events, the first respondent appears to have submitted a letter of resignation on 31. 8. 1979 to the Secretary of the College. It is seen that the Secretary of the College has made an endorsement on the said letter that till alternate arrangements are made and the first respondent is relieved, he must continue in service and mat the first respondent also consented for the same, though the stand taken for the first respondent at the relevant point of time was that due to persuasion he withdraw on the very same day the letter of resignation and that he-has continued to serve in the institution. While matters stood thus, on 23. 3. 1981, the secretary of the College while adverting to the letter dated 31. 8. 1979 has informed the first respondent that alternate arrangements have been made and therefore, he is being believed with effect from the afternoon of 31. 3:1981 and he may hand over charge to the principal and clear his dues and collect the service certificate as also the relieving order. THE first respondent made representations to the Secretary protesting about the action taken explaining the factual position according to him and the circumstances under which he continued in service in addition to making representations to the Director of college Education. Since mere was no positive response to grant him the relief, the first respondent moved the Government invoking its powers under Sec. 20 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, and the rules. made thereunder seeking for setting aside the order dated 23. 3. 1981. THE Government by its order dated 18. 6. 1982 accepted the plea of the first respondent that he withdraw the resignation letter and without considering this aspect, me management could not have passed the relieving orders and such orders could not be sustained in law. Consequently, the Govern. . ment directed reinstatement with immediate effect. THE aggrieved appellant-Management approached the private Colleges Tribunal at Madras, by filing T. A. C. No. 6 of 1982. THE tribunal by its order dated 29. 7. 1983 was of the view that since the termination was brought about by violation of the first respondent- employee, if cannot be said to be a termination by the appellant- management by way of punishment and therefore, set aside the order of the Government. Aggrieved, the first respondent filed W. P. No. 9635 of 1983. THE learned single Judge by his order under challenge held that the resignation was not the one submitted under or dealt with in accordance with clause 9 of the statutory contract of service prescribed in Form No. 7-C under Rule 11 (2x0 of the Rules and since the letter was addressed only to the Secretary of the College and not to the College committee and that the College Committee has not taken any decision on the letter of resignation given by the first respondent, which alone is the competent authority to deal with and decide such matters, the order of the tribunal treating the case as one of normal resignation is contrary to law and therefore, allowed the writ petition and thereby restored the order of the government. In coming to such a conclusion, the learned single Judge applied the principles laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in R. Jesudasan v. K. Selvaraj and others, (1989)1 L. L. J. 470. Hence, the above appeal.