Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 1609
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Dr. S. Senthilkumar & Others - Appellant
Versus
Thamilavel Uma Maheswaranar, Rep. by the Secretary S. Ramanathan Karanthai, Thanjavur & Others - Respondent
W.P.(MD) Nos. 11785 & 11786 of 2012, 11641 & 6076 of 2014 & C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No. 181 of 2014 & M.P.(MD) Nos. 1 of 2012 & 1 of 2014 (in both W.Ps. )
Decided On : 07-08-2019
R. Singaravelan, Senior Counsel, D. Muruganandham, Additional Government Pleader, S.K. Mani, K. Gurunathan, D. Selvanayagam, Advocates.
Headnote:
Tamil Nadu private colleges Act, 1976 - Sections 21 & 38 - challenging the order - confirming the order of the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education - punishment of dismissal from service was a major punishment - punishment of dismissal from service was a major punishment - Pursuant to the directions issued by the Honourable Division Bench of this Court and in order to provide an opportunity, the College Committee had taken an unanimous decision to impose major penalty of dismissal from service and forwarded the said decision to the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education for his approval under the provisions of the Act. It is contended that the proved charges against the respondents 4 and 5 are serious in nature and the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, without taking note of the seriousness of the allegations and without considering the fact that the principles of natural justice had been complied with, directed the College Committee to reconsider its decision by holding that the punishment of dismissal from service was a major punishment – Held, As far as W.P.(MD) No.11641 of 2014, in view of the allowing of W.P.(MD) No.6076 of 2014 and C.R.P. (NPD) (MD) No.181 of 2014, the College Management as well as the respondents 4 and 5 therein are at liberty to adjudicate the validity of the orders passed by the competent authority as well as the Appellate Authority under the provisions of the Act, as this Court has directed for issuance of the notification and for the functioning of the Tribunal. Thus, all such disputed issues and the facts shall be adjudicated by the respective parties before the Tribunal, which is now directed to be notified by the Government of Tamil Nadu. Accordingly, W.P.(MD) No.11641 of 2014 stands disposed of - When the Government itself has taken a decision to issue a notification for the revival of the Tribunal, under Section 38 of the Act, which would be certainly beneficial to all the aggrieved persons in respect of the orders passed by the competent authority or the appellate authority, this Court is of the opinion that such an opportunity is to be provided to all the aggrieved persons, who all are entitled to prefer an appeal before the Tribunal. When the statute contemplates Tribunal for effective adjudication of the issues by the aggrieved persons and the Government also decided to issue a notification for the revival of the Tribunal, which was wound up, then this Court is of the opinion that the decision of the Government is, undoubtedly, in the interest of larger public and the same must be allowed to be completed as stated in the abovesaid letter - When the Government itself had taken a decision to issue a notification for the revival of the Tribunal under Section 38 of the Act, this Court is of the considered opinion that all these issues raised in the present case are to be adjudicated by the parties concerned before the Tribunal. The disputed facts and issues, as held earlier, cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceedings. Such disputed facts are to be adjudicated with reference to the original records as well as the evidences, if any and such exercise is to be done by the Tribunal to be constituted under Section 38 of the Act – petition disposed of
JUDGMENT :
1. The relief sought for in W.P.(MD) Nos.11785 & 11786 of 2012 is to quash the order, dated 03.08.2012, passed by the Secretary, Thamilavel Uma Maheswaranar Karanthai Arts College and to direct him to regularize the services of the writ petitioners with backwages from 17.08.2011 to 27.04.2012.
2. The relief sought for in W.P.(MD) No.11641 of 2014 is to quash the order passed by the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.5884/A2/2012, dated 29.08.2013, and the consequential order passed by the Director of Collegiate Education, in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.30702/F3/2011, dated Nil.11.2013, confirming the order of the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education.
3. The relief sought for in W.P.(MD) No.6076 of 2014 is to direct the Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, to give effect of Sections 21 & 38 of the Tamil Nadu private colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter, referred to as “the Act”) by constituting the Tribunal for deciding the statutory appeal preferred under Section 21 of the Act.
4. The relief sought for in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.181 of 2014 is to set aside the order, dated 07.01.2014, passed in CMA CR No.19/404/14, by the learned Principal District Judge, Thanjavur and to direct the learned Principal District Judge, Thanjavur, to number CMA CR No.19/404/14 and hear the same on merits and in accordance with law.
5. For the sake of convenience, W.P.(MD) No.6076 of 2014 is taken as a lead case and the parties are referred as per the ranking in the said writ petition.
6. The writ petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.6076 of 2014 is Thamilavel Uma Maheswaranar Karanthai Arts College, Karanthai, represented by its President. The cause for filing of the writ petition arose on account of the fact that writ petitioner – College filed CMA CR No.19/404/14, dated 07.01.2014, challenging the order passed by the Director of Collegiate Education and the said civil miscellaneous appeal was returned by the learned Principal District Judge, Thanjavur, on the ground that the Tribunal was not constituted with reference to the provisions of the Act.
7. The writ petitioner – College is in existence for more than 75 years and it is a reputed Institution catering the needs of the poor and downtrodden in the locality. Two professors of the College, namely, Dr.S.Senthilkumar and Dr.Durai Panneerselvam questioned the authority of the writ petitioner – College and further involved in various unlawful activities affecting the reputation of the College. Thus, charges were framed against them. Enquiry was conducted. The charges were proved against them. Sufficient opportunities were provided to them by the College Committee to prove their innocence. However, they failed to establish their innocence in respect of the allegations set out in the charge memorandum. The enquiry was conducted by complying with the principles of natural justice. Based on the proved charges, the Professors Dr.S.Senthilkumar and Dr.Durai Panneerselvam were dismissed from service, vide decision dated 01.10.2011. However, the said decision of the writ petitioner – College was challenged before this Court and on the technical ground that the Professors cannot be dismissed from service without prior approval of the competent authority, the claim of the respondents 4 and 5 was allowed by this Court. Against the said order, W.A. (MD) No.388 and 389 of 2012 were preferred and the Honourable Division Bench of this Court, while upholding the orders passed by the Writ Court, held that the dismissal order cannot be passed without prior approval of the competent authority and accordingly, complete liberty was granted to the writ petitioner – College to give an opportunity to the respondents 4 and 5 and pass appropriate orders.
8. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Honourable Division Bench of this Court and in order to provide an opportunity, the College Committee had taken an unanimous decision to impose major penalty o
