Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 2166
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C. KUMARAPPAN, J.
Dr. S. John William - Petitioner
Versus
Loyala College (Autonomous), Rep. by its Secretary and Correspondent - Respondent
WP.No.3711 of 2020
Decided On : 07-01-2025
For the Petitioner:Mr. S. John William, Petitioner-in-person
For the Respondent: Mr. Godson Swaminathan for M/s. Isaac Chambers.
The court emphasized the necessity of considering an employee's past service and conduct in disciplinary proceedings, ruling that dismissal was shockingly disproportionate given the circumstances.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - The petitioner, an Associate Professor, was dismissed for alleged misconduct involving a defamatory letter. The court found the dismissal disproportionate, noting the lack of evidence for circulation of the letter and failure to consider the petitioner's long service. (Paras 10, 16, 20)
(B) Judicial Review - The court emphasized that the Disciplinary Authority must consider past service and conduct before imposing punishment, especially when the employee is near retirement. (Paras 16, 20)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was dismissed after a disciplinary inquiry found him guilty of misconduct related to a letter containing defamatory allegations against colleagues. He contended that the dismissal was disproportionate and disregarded prior court orders.
Findings of Court:
The court found the dismissal to be shockingly disproportionate and modified it to compulsory retirement, directing the respondent to pay all benefits.
Issues: The main issues included whether the dismissal was justified based on the evidence and if the Disciplinary Authority considered the petitioner's past service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the dismissal was excessive given the lack of evidence for the charges and the failure to consider the petitioner's long and unblemished service.
Result: Writ petition partly allowed, modifying dismissal to compulsory retirement.
ORDER :
(C. Kumarappan, J.)
The order impugned in the writ petition is the order of dismissal dated 24.01.2020 against the petitioner.
2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition is that, the petitioner is an Associate Professor of the respondent-College, and he joined the respondent-institution in 1990 and served for more than 27 years. According to the petitioner, he got many encomia and also held various responsible positions in the institution. While so, vide order dated 30.10.2017 he was suspended from service, and was also served with a charge memorandum dated 09.11.2017 containing the following charges:-
“I. CHARGES
1. That you working as Teaching Staff in Loyola College have committed highly reprehensible, indisciplinary and grave misconduct by authoring and submitting to the Management a letter written by you containing unfounded, highly defamatory, malicious, reckless and scurrilous allegations:
1. Against Rev.Dr.Danis Ponniah, Head of Jesuit Madurai Province (Provincial) and President of Loyola College Society, intended to tarnish his character, reputation, status and credibility in the College and in the Jesuit Province;
2. Against Members of Loyola College Management and Society of Jesus generally and by names;
3. Against Dr.J.Merline Shyla, Assistant Professor, Physics Department, Loyola College, with intention to outrage her modesty, fair name and reputation in College and in Society and further caused harassment to her in her workplace, and further;
2. That you have also spoken to other Members of staff of the College about the contents of your defamatory letter thus indulging in slandering. The contents of your defamatory letter is also in circulation in campus and in social media like WhatsApp.”
3. In pursuance of the above charge, an enquiry was conducted and ultimately the Enquiry Officer gave a positive report holding that the charges against the petitioner are proved. After that, the petitioner was served with the second show cause notice dated 12.03.2019, and on the basis of the enquiry report and the explanation given by the petitioner to the second show cause notice, he was dismissed from service vide the impugned order dated 24.01.2020.
4. Heard Mr.S.John William, petitioner/party-in-person and Mr.Godson Swaminathan, learned counsel for the respondent.
5. The petitioner would contend that the order of dismissal is against the evidence, and procedures. He would further submit that vide order dated 14.10.2019, though this Court directed the respondent to consider his past service and to dispose of the disciplinary proceedings sympathetically, in total disregard to the order of this Court, passed the dismissal order, which is an apparent infirmity on the face of the impugned order. He would further contend that though there is no imputation against him for the circulation of his letter dated 07.10.2017, the Enquiry Officer gone beyond the imputation and gave a finding that the petitioner was instrumental in circulating the confidential communication, which is perverse finding, and contrary to the evidence. The petitioner would also contend that the punishment imposed against the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate. Hence, prayed to interfere with the order of the dismissal by allowing this writ petition.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that the petitioner has made a deliberate false and vituperative statement against the responsible persons of their institution, and that such statements are highly defamatory in nature. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that, the authorship of letter is not in dispute and that he caused circulation of the same in the WhatsApp and thereby, caused great disrepute to the institution and to its officials. He would also draw the attention of this Court, as to the extent of power of judicial review, and would contend that unless the finding of the Enquiry Officer is perverse, thi
