Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 304
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
K. Seethalakshmi & Others - Petitioners
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu & Others - Respondents
W.P. Nos. 21769 to 21771, 21803, 22144 to 22158, 22214 to 22218, 22511, 22649 to 22656, 22682 to 22686, 22817 to 22826, 22869, 22907 to 22910, 22985 to 22994, 23095 to 23099, 23170 to 23179, 23190 to 23194, 23216 to 23219, 23230, 23325 to 23334, 23336 to 23347, 23400 to 23405 of 2019
Decided On : 05-03-2019
For the Petitioners: K. Venkataramani, Senior Counsel,
For the Respondents:M/s. P. Ebenezer Paul, V. Krishnamurthy, P. Godson Swaminath, M/s. Isaac Chambers, Advocates.
The limited scope of judicial review against show cause notices and the need for fair administrative decisions.
Headnote:
Show Cause Notices - Employment Dispute - Annamalai University Act, 2013 - [Article 226 of the Constitution of India] - [G.O.Ms.No.402, Higher Education Department dated 13.12.2006 and G.O.Ms.No.108, Higher Education Department dated 28.04.2017] - The court discussed the impugned show cause notices issued to non-teaching staff of Annamalai University, the authority of the Registrar to issue such notices, and the legal grounds for challenging show cause notices. The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review against show cause notices and the need for fair administrative decisions. It directed the Registrar to receive additional grounds/explanations/objections from the affected employees and instructed the competent authorities to consider all materials and submissions before passing final orders.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioners challenged show cause notices issued to non-teaching staff of Annamalai University after the government took over the university by enacting the Annamalai University Act, 2013. The notices stated that the employees were surplus and causing financial loss to the university. The petitioners argued for pay protection and challenged the authority of the Registrar to issue the notices.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the show cause notices were valid administrative decisions and emphasized the limited scope of judicial review against such notices. It directed the Registrar to receive additional grounds/explanations/objections from the affected employees and instructed the competent authorities to consider all materials and submissions before passing final orders.
Issues: Challenging show cause notices, authority of the Registrar to issue notices, pay protection for surplus employees, and the scope of judicial review against administrative decisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review against show cause notices, the need for fair administrative decisions, and the requirement for providing details in show cause notices to enable affected parties to submit explanations/objections.
Final Decision: The court rejected the relief sought in the writ petitions, directed the Registrar to receive additional grounds/explanations/objections from the affected employees, and instructed the competent authorities to consider all materials and submissions before passing final orders.
1. Challenging the Show Cause Notices issued to the writ petitioners, the present Batch of Writ Petitions are moved before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. The grievances of these writ petitioners are that, after taking over of the Annamalai University by the Government, by way of an Enactment namely, the Annamalai University Act, 2013, all the employees both teaching and non-teaching staffs were absorbed by the Government.
3. In the process of regulating the administration, various steps are taken by the competent authorities of the University. Inspections are conducted, Audits and other verification of records were done and certain actions, which all are necessitated in order to regulate the administration were taken by the Government. The writ petitioners, who all are non teaching staffs, working in the cadres of Zonal officer, Liaison officer and Special officer Grade-I have been issued with the impugned show cause notices, broadly stating that these officials namely Zonal officer/Liaison officers/Special Officers Grade-I and Grade-II on the rolls of the University remaining as surplus in terms of the workload available; and causing a huge financial loss to a tune about Rs.60 Crores per annum. The continuance of these 785 surplus officers in employment without no work but with full pay almost cripples the financial situation causing huge deficit every year and posing imminent threat to the very existence of the University. It is notices that the initial appointment as well as the confirmation orders seems to have been issued pursuant to the orders of the Vice-Chancellor without the availability of any sanctioned post and without making any assessment of the prevailing workload and without any recommendation of the Finance Committee and without any resolution of the University Syndicate.
4. It is further stated in the impugned show cause notices that with the intent of striking a balance between the deteriorating financial position of the University and to avoid retrenchment of these surplus officers, who have no work in the University, has been exploring the possibility of accommodating these surplus officers against some other cadre for the time being namely, Assistant Section Officers in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 + GP 4600. The steps are taken in order to maintain the financial stability of the University.
5. In this regard, the respondents have issued the impugned show cause notices in order to provide an opportunity to the writ petitioners and accordingly, all these writ petitioners are directed to submit their respective explanation/objections within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the impugned show cause notices.
6. All the writ petitioners had already submitted their explanations/objections to the impugned show cause notices pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court in the present writ petitions.
7. The learned Senior counsels appearing on behalf of the respective writ petitioners made submissions, mainly contending that pay protection has already been extended in the Statute itself. This apart, the Government also issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.402, Higher Education Department dated 13.12.2006 and G.O.Ms.No.108, Higher Education Department dated 28.04.2017, stating that even in the case of deputation of the staff on account of the non-availability of the sanctioned post, the pay protection must be granted.
8. At the outset, the pay protection, which all are traced out from the Statute cannot be taken away by the Registrar. The Government orders in this regard are also not followed at the time of issuing the impugned show cause notices.
9. The learned Senior counsels further made submissions that the Registrar has no authority to issue the show cause notices. Thus, the impugned show cause notices are to be scrapped. The petitioners are of the opinion that even if there is no availability of sanctioned post in the University, they must be given pay protection
