Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 556
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Dr. V. Ananth - Petitioner
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Department of Higher Education, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P.No.30383 of 2018 & W.M.P.No.35462 of 2018
Decided On : 27-04-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:J. Saravana Vel, Advocate.
For the Respondents: A. Raja Perumal, Additional Government Pleader.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in administrative decisions, the need for fair and transparent administrative procedures, and the authority of the Registrar to issue show cause notices.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Challenge to Show Cause Notice - Annamalai University Act, 2013, Section 58(3)(c) - The court discussed the impugned show cause notice issued to a Special Officer Grade-I of the University, challenging the decision to refix the Scale of Pay and the consequential notice issued by the University. The court highlighted the legal provisions related to pay protection and the authority of the Registrar to issue show cause notices. The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review against administrative decisions and the need for fair and transparent administrative procedures. The final decision directed the University to consider additional grounds and objections from the petitioner and make a decision in accordance with the law.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner, a Special Officer Grade-I at Annamalai University, challenged the show cause notice issued by the University regarding the refixing of the Scale of Pay and the consequential notice. The petitioner contended that the initial appointment and confirmation orders were issued without the availability of sanctioned posts and without the recommendation of the Finance Committee and the University Syndicate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned show cause notice was challenged on the grounds of pay protection, authority of the Registrar to issue the notice, and the need for fair administrative procedures. The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review and directed the University to consider additional grounds and objections from the petitioner and make a decision in accordance with the law.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of the show cause notice, the authority of the Registrar to issue the notice, and the scope of judicial review in administrative decisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the show cause notice could be challenged if issued by an incompetent authority, in violation of statutory rules, or on the grounds of mala fides. The court emphasized the need for fair and transparent administrative procedures and the limited scope of judicial review.
Final Decision: The court directed the University to receive additional grounds and objections from the petitioner, consider all materials, and make a decision in accordance with the law.
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring the decision taken by the Finance Committee dated 18.1.2017 and Syndicate in Resolution No.41 dated 8.2.2017 in so far as refixing the Scale of Pay in the pay band of Rs.9,300-34,800+GP4,600 from 15,600-39,100+GP5,400 and the consequential notice issued by the third respondent bearing Reference No.C1-10/21851/2018 dated 13.8.2018 as illegal contrary to the statutory protection given under Section 58(3)(c) of the Annamalai University Act, 2013 and direct the respondents to continuously pay the salary as being paid as on date with 7th Pay Commission benefits from the due date.),
1. The show cause notice issued by the third respondent in proceedings dated 13.8.2018, is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that he was working as Special Officer Grade-I under the third respondent-University. The writ petitioner was appointed on 8.7.2002 as Special Officer and his service was confirmed. After taking over the University by the Government, now the respondents issued show cause notice stating that the initial appointment of the writ petitioner was made without the availability of any sanctioned post and without any assessment of workload and without any recommendations of the Finance Committee and the Resolutions of the University Syndicate.
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 petitioner, who is a non teaching staff, working in the cadres of Special officer Grade-I has been issued with the impugned show cause notice, broadly stating that the said official namely Special Officer Grade-I 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 noticed 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 notice 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 second respondent has issued the impugned show cause notices in order to provide an opportunity to the writ petitioner and accordingly, the writ petitioner is directed to submit his explanations/objections within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the impugned show cause notice.
6. The writ petitioner had already submitted his explanations/objections to the impugned show cause notice pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court in the present writ petition.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner made a submission, mainly contending that pay protection has already been extended in the Statute itself. This apart, the Government also issued or
