Thottathil.B.Radhakrishnan, J.

An aided recognised private college, affiliated to the Mahatma Gandhi University, has filed this revision under Section 63(9) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985, challenging the decision of the Mahatma Gandhi University Appellate Tribunal, allowing an appeal filed by the 1st respondent herein, who was the Head of the Department of English in that college.

2. The teacher made Ext.M1 application for leave dated 09.10.2006 seeking grant of commuted leave from the first week of November. The reason attributed for the request for commuted leave was medical grounds. As per Ext.M2 dated 01.11.2006, the request for commuted leave was refused. On 02.11.2006, he made Ext.M3(a) application for medical leave supported by Ext.M3(b) certificate, which is one issued in terms of Rule 117 in Part I K.S.R., which applies by virtue of statute 42 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997. The application was for 45 days of medical leave and the recommendation of the doctor was that the teacher needs rest from 06.11.2006 to 20.12.2006. After submitting that application on 02.11.2006, the teacher did not attend duty from 06.11.2006 to 20.12.2006.

3. In the allotted column for such purpose in Ext.M3(a) leave application, the Principal has recorded that the application is not recommended, though vivid reasons are not stated therein.

4. The teacher says that on 24.11.2006, he went over to the college, on getting information that the application for medical leave is not being sanctioned. Though he says so, he did not join duty then. We find that the Principal addressed Ext.M4 to the Manager, who is the competent authority to deal with leave applications, stating different reasons why the leave need not be granted. From Ext.M4, we find that the Principal took the stand that leave need not be sanctioned on account of different grounds. The leave sought for was, according to the Principal, in the midst of the prime period of the course in November-December and it was not advisable to let the Head of the Department of English, be away from the college. The Principal was of the view that there being a ban, at the relevant time, on appointment, even of guest lecturers, the college would not get a substitute. Not only that, he had also cautioned that substitute guest lecturers may not be available in the middle of a term. He also appeared to have been skeptical about the veracity of the certificate issued by the Medical Officer regarding the need for the teacher to go on leave on grounds referable to illness of 'Kattigraham' and 'Vathavikara'.

5. On allegation of unauthorised absence from 06.11.2006 to 20.12.2006, the management issued a show cause notice followed by a memo of charges. This was followed by appointment of an enquiry authority and consequential enquiry.

6. In the enquiry proceedings, the delinquent teacher participated, but did not tender any oral evidence. The Principal gave evidence. Another teacher and the librarian gave evidence. The enquiry concluded, holding the teacher guilty of the charges levelled against him. Relying on the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority imposed on him the punishment of dismissal from service.

7. The teacher availed his statutory remedy of appeal under the Mahatma Gandhi University Act. The parties were heard by the appellate tribunal.

8. University also filed a counter affidavit, taking the stand that the Principal who took action against the delinquent teacher was not authorised to do so, since he was not appointed as the Principal and he was authorized only to act as a drawing and disbursing officer of the college. The fact of the matter remains that he was put in charge of the office of the Principal. This means that he was bestowed with all responsibilities and duties attached to that office.

9. The tribunal, adjudicating on the basis of the materials, including the enquiry file, concluded that the disciplinary proceeding against the teacher was