1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, to quash the order vide No.L2/9141/99 dated 22.02.2003, passed by the Registrar, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, imposing minor punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect.

2. The petitioner belongs to scheduled caste community, and after passing B.Sc. Horticulture in first class, obtained the Master degree also in first class.

3. The petitioner joined as Assistant Professor Horticulture at Tamil Nadu Rice Research Central, Aduthurai, in 1997. The petitioner was, thereafter, sent on deputation to TANUVAS at Kattupakkam as Assistant Professor in the training centre.

4. The petitioner, during his service, came in contact with respondent No.1, a colleague of the petitioner in different department. The petitioner treated her to be the elder sister and moved with her. The petitioner used to share his experience of his field and seek her view point whereas she used to visit the petitioner with food, which she used to bring from her house and share it with him. The petitioner also used to visit her.

5. It is submitted that the first respondent gave a frivolous complaint against the petitioner. The allegations levelled against the petitioner were not true, which, according to the petitioner, were not only childish but absurd.

6. The complaint against the petitioner was that he disturbed her during duty hours and did not allow her to attend to her work. The other allegation was that he had taken her vehicle without her knowledge/permission.

7. On notice by the employer, the petitioner submitted reply to the false allegations.

8. It is submitted that beside the complaint of the respondent No.1 to the Head of the Department, her husband and her relatives with certain rowdy elements came and attacked the petitioner on 11.08.1999.

9. The petitioner was directed by the Head of Department to lodge a complaint with the local police for this act, which was done.

10. That though the relatives of the petitioner came to enquire about the incident of beating of the petitioner, the incident was falsely reported to be assault by the relatives of the petitioner against respondent No.1 and was reported to the police by respondent No.1.

11. The petitioner was transferred to Bavanisagar, where he was not allowed to join duty for three months, and suspended from service.

12. It is the case of the petitioner that on passing of the order of suspension, he came to know that respondent No.1 has pressurized the superiors to proceed against the petitioner. It is further submitted that her allegations in charge memo were contrary to the written report submitted by her earlier.

13. It is the case of the petitioner that in the show cause notice, proposed punishment was not mentioned and the suspension order was passed under Para 4(1)(d)(i) of Appendix IX and in exercise of powers conferred under Item No.4 of Appendix X of the ASR & R of Tamilnadu Agricultural University. That the suspension order being illegal was untenable.

14. It is submitted that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Disciplinary Committee on 03.05.2000 whereas he was kept under suspension continuously, though it ought to have been revoked within three months. The show cause memo was not accompanied by the documents like list of witnesses and copy of the complaint, and other documents.

15. The petitioner, therefore, submitted interim explanation denying the charges. It is submitted that the respondents, without supplying the necessary documents, issued charge memo by adding new charges, one such charge being that the petitioner was not at Headquarters during his period of suspension.

16. It is submitted that the charge memo stood vitiated for want of necessary documents and denial of his request to furnish the documents.

17. The enquiry was held separately and the petitioner was not allowed to witness the enquiry, whi