Applicant may file review petition against appellate order not impleading him as necessary party.

Srinivasan, J.

A. INTRODUCTION.

This application is to review the order in W.A.No.1256 of 1992 dated 17-12-1993 and for setting aside the judgment as illegal, imcompetent and without jurisdiction. The petitioner herein (hereinafter referred to as ‘the applicant’) was not a party to the appeal. He obtained permission to file the present review application in C.M.P.No. 6622 of 1995. The Bench, which granted permission on 27-4-1995, made it clear in the order that the same was subject to the rights of the respondents object to the same, if so advised.

2. The third respondent in the application is the contesting respondent and he will be referred to herein as ‘the third respondent’. He was the petitioner in W.P.No.18609 of 1991, which has generated the Writ Appeal and the present application. The first respondent herein is the Commissioner of Collegiate Education while the second respondent is the Management of S.B.K. College, Aruppukkottai. The second respondent is a private aided college.

B. HISTORY

3. The third respondent joined the second respondent college in the year 1971 as Assistant Professor, Physical Education. He applied for leave on loss of pay for two years from 6-3-1981 to 5-3-1993 which was sanctioned by the then Secretary to the College. The Director of Collegiate Education came to know that the third respondent was working abroad without getting prior permission. Hence, he instructed the Management to take action against the third respondent for going abroad without getting prior permission from the Director- vide his letter dated 6-8- 1982 - and also instructed the Management not to permit the third respondent to rejoin duty without getting prior permission from the Director. An explanation was called for from the third respondent by the Secretary to the College by his letter dated 4- 9-1982. The third respondent sent a reply on 19-10-1982 which was forwarded to the Director of Collegiate Education. He referred to his registration with the Foreign Assignment Section of Government of India through the College in 1977 and obtaining NOC from the College for his passport. There was, however, no explanation for working in a foreign country without getting the prior permission of the Director of Collegiate Education.

.4. The third respondent applied for extension of leave by letter dated 9-2-1983 for the period 6-3-1983 to 5-7-1983. The Secretary to the College sought for a clarification from the Director of Collegiate Education whether the extension could be sanctioned. The reply was in the negative. In the meanwhile, the Secretary wrote a letter on 16-2-1983 to the third respondent informing him that he was not in a position to sanction the extension of leave until he received a reply from the Director of Collegiate Education, Madras. The third respondent applied for further extension of leave on loss of pay from 6-7-1983 to 5-7-1984. That was also not sanctioned. In spite of the fact that leave on loss of pay was not sanctioned beyond 5-3-1983, the third respondent continued to be absent from duty. The Director of Collegiate Education in his Proceedings Ro.No. 19386/E1/84 dated 26-4-1984 informed the Management of the College that extension of leave on loss of pay could not be granted to the third respondent. The third respondent requested the Management by his letter dated 15- 5-1984 to permit him to join duty on 6-7-1984. The Secretary to the College sent a reply on 14-6-1984 informing him that he could not join duty as the permission of the Director of Collegiate Education had not been given therefor.

5. The Director or Collegiate Education by his letter dated 8-8-1984 in L.Dis.12802/F2/84 instructed the Management to take disciplinary action against the third respondent for working abroad without getting prior permission from the competent authority. Pursuant thereto, the Management served a Charge Memo dated 7-1-1985 on the third respondent calling upon him to show cause why disciplinary actio