P.R. Raman, J.

1. The revision petioner was working as a Selection Grade Lecturer as also the Head of the Department in English in the Cochin College run by the Cochin Educational Society, which is a private college affiliated to Mahatma Gandhi University. He possess a Doctorate in English. While working so, he was elected as a staff representative of the Parent Teacher Association (hereinafter referred to as 'PTA for short) during 2002-03 and 2003-04. The constituion of the Executive Committee consists of 25 members of which 16 shall represent the parents/guardians of the students studying in the college and 9 members are to be selected as representatives of the staff of the college, the President of the PTA is considered to be the guardian of students as per the bye-laws and its Secretary, a member of the staff. While holding the position as the Secretary of the PTA, the petitioner along with the President happened to sent a complaint to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, alleging certain mismanagement against the office of the college. On receipt of the said complaint, a surprise check was made by the vigilance in the office of the Cochin College and had taken certain documents for the purpose of investigation. The intervention of the vigilance, as a result of the complaint made by the petitioner, was considered to be a conduct unbecoming of a Lecturer in the College and the management thought that the petitioner was instrumental for bringing disrepute to the institution, kept him under suspension from service by order dated 28-5-2004, invoking section 63 (1) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). As per the above provision, the Educatioanl Agency is competent to place a teacher of a private college under suspension, when any disciplinary proceedings is proposed to be taken against him or when such disciplinary proceedings are pending/However, as per Section 63 (4) of the Act, such disciplinary action has to be completed within a period of three months or within such further period as may be allowed by the Vice-Chancellor.

2. Challenging the order of suspension, the petitioner has approached this Court by filling W.P(C) No. 17784 of 2004. Though the challenge in the writ petition was only against the suspension order, by the time the matter came up for hearing, the normal charge sheet was issued and the petitioner has also submitted his reply. This Court, in such circumstances, by order dated 3-8-2004, directed that if the enquiry against the petitioner is not completed before 28-8-2004, the maximum time fixed for completing the enquiry as per Section 63(4) of the Act, the petitioner shall be reinstated in service. Of course, we notice that under Section 63(4) of the Act, it is not merely the enquiry, but the entire disciplinary proceedings should be completed with a period of three months. In the interim order passed by this Court in W.P(C) No. 17784 of 2004, there was an observation that the action of the petitioner will amount to setting the law in motion, by moving the competent authority to enquire into certain allegations concerned with the collection and utilisation of the funds of PTA etc. Prima facie, on the facts disclosed in the suspension order, it was unnecessary to keep the teacher under suspension. This Court went on to say that the case of something similar to the classical examble of unreasonable administrative action, ie, dismissing a teacher for being red haired. Though Sri. Chitambaresh, the learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner placed heavy reliance on the said order, we may notice that such an observation was made at a pre-mature stage of the enquiry, at a time when the ultimate punishment of dismissal could not have been contemplated. However, the management could not complete the disciplinary proceedings within the aforesaid period of three months as contemplated by the Statute and as directed by this Court. Hence, he was re