Administrative actions affecting employment must adhere to principles of natural justice, requiring an inquiry into allegations before any reversion.

ORDER :

(R.N. MANJULA, J.)

This Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings dated 11.10.2019 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to function as Head of the Department of Psychology in the third respondent's College.

2. Heard Ms.R.Preethikaa, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.Arumugam, learned Government Advocate for R1 and Mr.R.Bharanidharan, learned Standing Counsel for R2 & R3 and perused the materials available on record.

3. The petitioner has been posted as Head of the Department (hereinafter referred to as HOD) of Psychology Department in the third respondent College on 01.06.2017. He has been given with the proceedings dated 09.10.2019 calling for explanation on certain allegations made against him. Pending the proceedings, the petitioner was reversed as an Assistant Professor and he was asked to handover the charge to his junior Dr.T.Jothimani. As the impugned order reversing the petitioner has been passed without following due process of law, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the impugned order.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner being the senior most, has been appointed as HOD. He ought not have been reversed as Assistant Professor without that being an order of punishment against any proved charges. It is further submitted that he has been reversed to the post of Assistant Professor without giving him any opportunity and that is against the principles of natural justice.

5. The third respondent is an educational institution. The petitioner has been working in the Psychology Department. Even the third respondent did not deny the fact that the petitioner has been given with the post of HOD by considering his seniority in the Department. But, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent that after the petitioner was posted as HOD, various allegations have been received from the faculty as well as the students and the students had expressed some insecurity and they have been victimised at the hands of the petitioner. As an urgent measure, the third respondent asked the petitioner to handover the charge of HOD to the other Assistant Professor Dr.T.Jothimani. The petitioner had also accepted the same and handed over the charges and thereafter, he raised objections by filing this Writ Petition stating that he was not given with an opportunity of hearing.

6. There is no quarrel on the point that the senior most person in the Department can hold the post of HOD and the provision in this regard has also been complied by the third respondent college. The third respondent was compelled to take action against the petitioner as there was lot of allegations received against him and the college administration has bounden duty to raise up to the occasion. Only in that compelling situation, the petitioner was allowed to continue as an Assistant Professor instead of HOD.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the reversion had happened without any enquiry and is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

8. In the educational institution when a sensitive issues like the students issues are made and the students have expressed insecurity due to victimisation at the hands of any faculty, the rightful course open to the college administrative committee is to initiate an enquiry. It is also not beyond the authority of the college administrative committee to put the concerned person under suspension, if needed till the enquiry is completed.

9. In the instant case, though the allegations made against the petitioner were very sensitive in nature, the third respondent did not choose to place the petitioner under suspension. Instead, the petitioner was asked to hand over the charges of HOD to other faculty.

10. It is further submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the third responden