The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Act 8 of 1971 in employment disputes, particularly regarding the removal of non-teaching staff. The judgment also emphasizes the requirement of natural justice and the consequences of unauthorized absence from duty.

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 24. 1998 passed by the second respondent and after setting aside the same for a consequential direction to restore the petitioner in the post of Superintendent with all benefits.

2. By the impugned order dated 24. 1998, the petitioners services were removed by the second respondent on the basis of an order passed by the first respondent Vice Chancellor Tamil Nadu Agricultural University.

3. Notice of motion was ordered in the writ petition on 16. 1998 and subsequently, the matter was admitted on 011. 2001. The petitioners prayer for interim relief was rejected by this court by an order dated 28. 2003.

4. On notice from this Court, a detailed counter affidavit (running into 45 pages) has been filed by the second respondent.

5. The first respondent University was created by the Tamil Nadu Act 8 of 1971. The petitioner joined as a Fieldman during the year 1960. Subsequently, he was selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to the post of Junior Assistant and appointed with effect from 15. 1965 in the office of the Dean, Agricultural College and Research Institute, Coimbatore. After the formation of the University with effect from 06. 1971, the centre got merged with the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University and the petitioner became its employee. The petitioner was promoted as an Assistant on 08. 1975. Subsequently, on promotion he was made as Superintendent with effect from 17. 1984. At the time of his removal, he was Superintendent under the Directorate of Soil and Crop Management Studies of the University at Coimbatore.

6. The petitioner proceeded on Unearned Leave on Private Affairs from 01. 1984 to 30.9.1984. Then he applied for Extraordinary Leave on loss of pay for one year and two months from 010. 1984 to 30.3.1985. Instead of joining duty, he went on extending the leave from 010. 1985 to 33. 1986. Thereafter from 04. 1987 to 33. 1988. During the aforesaid period, he was asked to report for duty and his leave was refused. In spite of the same, he did not report for duty and continuously applied for leave for various spells. Later on, the University found that the letters sent in his name were received by one P.Sivagami. Hence, they requested the Superintendent of Police, Tiruchirappalli to find out the whereabouts of the petitioner. It was found that he was working in Saudi Arabia by using a false passport and giving false details.

7. Therefore, a charge memo was framed along with a questionnaire dated 111. 1987. He filled up the questionnaire and it was sent without signing the same. He did not give any satisfactory reply for his long absence without any leave application. During the police enquiry, it was found that his wifes name was Sivagami. She had told the police that the petitioner had taken their daughter to Bombay for treatment for her mental illness. But, however, on enquiry by the police, it was revealed that he had gone to the Middle-East and was working there. For the charge memo dated 21. 1998, the petitioner sent a reply dated 13. 1998. He had stated that since he had worked for more than 28 years, he may be allowed to rejoin duty. He also pointed out that some other teaching staff had also gone abroad and were let off without punishment.

8. An enquiry was ordered by an Enquiry Committee and the petitioner was directed to appear before the Enquiry Committee. The enquiry was held on 13. 1998. The Chairman of the Enquiry Committee submitted a report on 13. 1998 holding the petitioner guilty of all the charges. A copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner. After getting his explanation, a show-cause notice was issued to him asking his reply as to why he should not be removed from service. The order of the first respondent Vice Chancellor was communicated by the second respondent Registrar. The petitioner instead of answering the show-cause notice sought for further time. However, as his request