R RAMESH Vs. MANONMANIAM SUNDARANAR UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The core contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the entire charge memo impugned in this writ petition was issued on malice.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that he who made a complaint against certain financial irregularities occurred in the University. He is a whistle blower, was being harassed by the second respondent/Registrar. The petitioner states that the second respondent is the reason behind the issuance of charge memo impugned in the present writ petition. The complaint made by the writ petitioner against the illegalities and irregularities and certain malpractice took place in the University, an action was initiated by the competent authorities and a criminal case was registered and the matter is pending before the competent Court of law. In view of the complaint given by the writ petitioner as a responsible officer of the University, he was made to suffer and charge memo was issued against him. Certain incidents are narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition in respect of the nature of the complaint given by the writ petitioner and the action taken against the officials responsible for such irregularities and illegalities.

(3.) At the out set, the learned counsel for the petitioner is of an opinion that the second respondent, who is none other than the Registrar of the University has taken personal vengeance against the writ petitioner and issued the present charge memo. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the writ petitioner was appointed by undergoing the process of selection on 30.07.2008. Three tire selection process was conducted and the certificate submitted by the writ petitioner was verified by the Selection Committee itself. Thus, the verification of certificates once again would not arise at all.