P KASILINGAM Vs. BHARATHIAR UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in W. P. No. 12581 of 1988 is the appellant, and the three respondents therein are the respondents herein. The write petition was filed for issue of a write of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the third respondent dated 16th September 1988.

(2.) IN the supporting affidavit, he has stated as follows : He joined third respondent college in June 1966 as Associate Lecturer in Electrical Engineering. In 1974, he was promoted as Lecturer in Electrical, Electronics and Communication Engineering. After referring to several writ proceedings filed in the Court and the Supreme Court between himself and the college, he would state that on 30th April 1988, he attended the Annul Senate Meeting of the first respondent University to which he was selected unopposed in April, 1986. During the course of discussions in the meeting, in the presence of the Principal of the third respondent College, who was also present, he had made his speech about internal assessment marks being misused by certain teachers, and that it should be put an end to. A resolution was passed to that effect. Subsequently,, the Committee appointed on that respect, recommended scrapping of the system of internal assessment, which has given rise to favouritism and malpractices, and the amended resolution is made applicable for the academic year 1988-89 onwards. The Principal of the third respondent College, who has been nurturing continuous grudge against petitioner, and waiting for an opportunity to victimise him because of several proceedings instituted earlier in which he had succeeded, had sent a memo on May 6, 1988 asking petitioner to give particulars with regard to the speech made by him on April 30th, 1988 during the course of the debate in Senate Meeting. When the Principal was asked to produce a certified copy of the discussions, he refused to furnish and stated that there was no necessity to produce copy of deliberations and asked him to send a reply. On September 6, 1988, petitioner replied in Tamil questioning the bona fides of the Principal in initiating action for the role played by him in the Senate Meeting. As expected, he drew a proceeding on September 16, 1988 framing charges and also placed him under suspension as if grave charges exist. This was replied on September 19, 1988 and on September 28, 1988 he had asked for his explanation. Hence, he had filed the present writ petition.

(3.) IN the counter-affidavit, Principal had stated that the Private Colleges Act will not apply, but Grant-in-Aid Code alone will apply to third respondent College as held by the Division Bench of this Court in W. P. Nos. 2604 and 2889 of 1981, etc. and even if the Private Colleges Act applies, petitioner cannot straightway file a writ petition. The impugned order was passed on September 16, 1988 and the petitioner had been relieved immediately, and it is only after a month, he had chosen to file the present writ petition and obtained stay in the Vacation Court suppressing several material particulars. He had initiated action in exercise of his powers as head of the Institution and not because of any personal grudge against him. The College is an autonomous Institution and affiliated to Bharathiar University, and therefore, not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. By letter dated May 6, 1988 he was called upon to state particulars of his speech in the Senate Meeting so that action could be taken against the concerned individuals against who charges were levelled. Petitioner refused to give information on the allegation made by him in the Senate Meeting. Further in his letter dated July 4, 1988, petitioner had raised untenable contentions, and hence, he was asked to give particulars. Instead of furnishing particulars, he had chosen to send copies of his communication to members of the Teaching staff, Lecturers, Professors, etc. On July 12, 1988, he was called upon to give information which necessitated certain remarks made by him to be investigated. Yet, he did furnish information and wrote a letter on September 6, 1988 in Tamil making false and defamatory allegations. It is the contents of this letter which had led to the framing of the impugned memo dated September 16, 1988, and therefor, and at this stage, he cannot file the writ petition and prevent a proper enquiry being conducted.