1. The writ petitioner was appointed as a Director (in the Grade of Professor) in the Department of Women's Studies in the Bharathidasan University on 18.3.2005. In June 2010, a Committee was constituted for reviewing the functioning of the Department of Women's Studies. The said Committee submitted its report on 1.2.2012. The report of the Committee was placed before the Syndicate in its meeting held on 4.2.2012. The Syndicate appears to have authorised the Vice-Chancellor to take appropriate action and the Vice-Chancellor passed an order on 4.2.2012, placing the writ petitioner under suspension.

2. The Tamil Nadu Federation of Universities Faculty Association, Madurai gave a representation to His Excellency, the Governor of Tamil Nadu, who is also the Chancellor of the University, against the suspension of the writ petitioner. The petitioner herself also addressed a representation on 7.2.2012 to the Governor.

3. On both the said representations, the Governor-Chancellor appears to have passed an order, directing the Vice-Chancellor to revoke the suspension. The decision of the Governor-Chancellor was communicated by the Secretary to Governor by a letter dated 9.2.2012. This letter contained the reasons for the extraordinary decision taken by the Governor-Chancellor. It was stated in the said letter that certain points needed clarification. They were:-

(i) The rationale behind bringing the subject as a table agenda in the Syndicate meeting;

(ii) The details of show cause notice, not mentioned in the proceedings;

(iii) The copy of the Audit Report of the Concurrent Audit Unit and Local Fund Audit Department had to be verified to know the genuineness;

(iv) The copy of the Review Committee Report to be examined; and

(v) The details of the constitution of the Enquiry Committee, not seen in the proceedings.

4. Immediately upon receipt of the communication dated 9.2.2012 from the Governor-Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor passed an order dated 13.2.2012, revoking the suspension and permitting the petitioner to join as Professor and as Director in the Department of Women's Studies. But by the same proceedings, the Vice-Chancellor transferred the petitioner as Professor in the Department of Economics, without affecting her monetary benefits. On the same day, the Registrar passed an order giving effect to the transfer of the petitioner to the Department of Economics.

5. Therefore, the petitioner came up with the first writ petition in W.P.No.2922 of 2012, challenging the order of transfer dated 13.2.2012 and also praying for a direction to the respondents to restore her to her original position as Director of Women's Studies. On 9.3.2012, notice was ordered in the said writ petition.

6. Simultaneously, the petitioner also filed a representation before the Governor-Chancellor. But the Vice-Chancellor also kept sending communications to the Governor-Chancellor claiming that the petitioner was guilty of several acts of omission and commission. Therefore, the Governor-Chancellor appears to have directed the University to arrange to have an enquiry conducted by a retired District Judge. Therefore, by a letter dated 19.6.2012, the Secretary to the Governor, directed the Vice-Chancellor to arrange for the conduct of an enquiry by a retired District Judge, to look into the issue, instead of proceeding with the enquiry by the Review/Expert Committee. By the same letter, the Vice-Chancellor was also directed to re-transfer the petitioner back to the Department of Women's Studies, without prejudice to the enquiry.

7. In pursuance of the said order, the Syndicate passed a resolution on 20.6.2012, restoring the petitioner back to the Department of Women's Studies as a Professor, though not as a Director. In pursuance of the said resolution, the Vice-Chancellor also passed a consequential order. Interestingly, the Vice-Chancellor's order dated 22.6.2012 proceeded on the basis as though disciplinary proceedings were pending against t