Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 1252
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI & M. VENUGOPAL, JJ.
Dr. R. Radhakrishnan – Appellant
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep by Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education (1-1) Department & Others – Respondent
W.A.Nos. 588 & 589 of 2014 & M.P.Nos. 1, 2, 2 & 3 of 2014
Decided on: 09-03-2015
Advocate Appeared
For the Petitioner: In person.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2, P.S. Sivashanmughasundaram, Spl.G.P., R3, P.H. Arvind Pandian, Additional Advocate General for V. Shanmugasundar, Advocate.
Competence of the appointing authority to suspend a Vice Chancellor and the impact of delay in investigation and trial on the revocation of suspension.
Headnote:
Suspension - Vice Chancellor - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(2), 13(1)(a), 13(1)(d), 13(1)(e) - Anna University, Coimbatore Act, 2006 - Section 54 - Anna University Statutes on Disciplinary Procedure - Delay in Investigation and Trial
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner, a Vice Chancellor, was suspended due to a criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He challenged the legality of the suspension orders and the delay in investigation and trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the State Government, as the appointing authority, was competent to suspend the Vice Chancellor. It also held that the delay in investigation and trial did not warrant revocation of the suspension.
Issues: Legality of suspension orders, competence of the suspending authorities, revocation of suspension due to delay in investigation and trial
Ratio Decidendi: The State Government, as the appointing authority, was competent to suspend the Vice Chancellor. The delay in investigation and trial did not warrant revocation of the suspension.
Final Decision: The court directed the Special Court to conduct and conclude the trial expeditiously, not later than six months from the date of receipt of the order.
Satish K. Agnihotri, J.
Questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 15.4.2013 passed in W.P.Nos.26607 of 2009 and 9626 of 2011, the writ petitioner has come up with these appeals.
2. The facts in nutshell leading to filing of the writ petitions are that the writ petitioner, while working as the first Vice Chancellor of Anna University, Coimbatore, was placed under suspension, vide G.O.(2D) No.83, Higher Education (II) Department dated 31.8.2009, stating therein that with permission, the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption had registered a regular case against him in Coimbatore Detachment Cr.No.15/09/AC/CB under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(a), 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Challenging the legality and validity of the same, the writ petitioner preferred W.P.No.26607 of 2009. Thereafter, by communication, dated 08.02.2010, the writ petitioner was repatriated from the office of the Vice Chancellor to his parent post as Professor of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, Chennai. The writ petitioner joined duty on 09.02.2010. Consequent thereupon, by order dated 9.2.2010, the suspension of the petitioner on the post of Professor was continued, which was challenged in W.P.No.9626 of 2011. The second suspension order was also passed on the same ground, i.e., registration of criminal case against him by the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption. The Headquarters of the writ petitioner was made at Chennai.
3. In the meantime, the writ petitioner preferred a Criminal Original Petition, being Crl.O.P.No.12947 of 2011, seeking quashment of the First Information Report No.15/2009/AC/CB. The said petition was dismissed on 20.02.2012 with a direction to the respondent therein to file a final report within a period of six weeks. Thereafter, M.P.No.1 of 2012 was filed in the said Criminal original petition seeking extension of time to complete the investigation and file the final report. Accordingly, time was extended by four months by order dated 09.04.2012. Further time was extended by three months on an application made in M.P.No.2 of 2012, by order dated 28.08.2012. Another miscellaneous petition was also filed in M.P.No.3 of 2012 seeking extension of time by one month to file the final report. That was also granted by order dated 07.12.2012. The charge sheet has been filed and the case is pending trial before the designated court.
4. The contention of Dr.R.Radhakrishnan, appellant-in-person is that the appellant cannot be made to suffer on account of delay in investigation and conclusion of trial by the authorities. The appellant has fully cooperated in the investigation and subsequently, in trial. The investigation could not be completed within the reasonable time and the trial is still pending consideration. The appellant is out of service since the first order of suspension was passed on 31.8.2009. The appellant is suffering agony for no fault of his. The appellant had taken fresh initiatives to establish the institution as he was appointed the first Vice Chancellor. The appellant has been punished for good work done by him.
5. On the question of legality, Dr.R.Radhakrishnan would submit that two suspension orders cannot be passed for the same offence and also the first order of suspension dated 31.8.2009 passed by the Government was vitiated as the Government has no competence to suspend the Vice Chancellor.
6. Per contra, Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandian, Additional Advocate General appearing with Mr.V.Shanmugasundar, learned advocate for the University, would contend that the parent post of the appellant was Professor in the University. The Anna University, Coimbatore was established by The Anna University, Coimbatore Act, 2006 (For short Act 2006). Under Section 54 of the Act 2006, the appellant was appointed as the first Vice Chancellor by the State Government for the period not exceeding three years and as such, the State Government, being the appointing authority,
