The college committee has the authority to conduct disciplinary proceedings in unaided institutions, and dismissal does not require approval from government authorities.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.5198/A3/2017 dated 11.04.2017 and the consequential proceedings No. Nil dated 01.07.2017 issued by the 4th respondent and the proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.30258/F1/2017 dated 10.11.2017 issued by the 2nd respondent and seeking a direction to the 4th respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service as a Lab Assistant with all attendant benefits.

2. Heard Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Velu Sammi, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3and Mr.N.Manogaran, learned counsel for the 4th respondent and perused the materials available on record.

3. The petitioner was appointed as an Office Assistant in the 4th respondent college in an unaided course on 30.11.1989. Thereafter, he was promoted to the position of Laboratory Assistant with effect from 24.01.2005. On 21.08.2015, the 3rd respondent issued an order of suspension. Subsequently, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo on 07.09.2015 by the 4th respondent by .. citing the allegations as under:

(i) unauthorized absence for 39 days;

(ii) failure to provide a satisfactory reason for the unauthorized absence upon resuming duty on 10.11.2014;

(iii) lack of due care in maintaining the laboratory;

(iv) disruption of the institution by lodging complaints before the authorities; and

(v) failure to provide a satisfactory explanation, leading to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings.

3.1. After completing the enquiry, it was found that the charges against the petitioner were proved. Consequently, the 4th respondent imposed the punishment of removal from service and forwarded the proposal to the 3rd respondent for approval. However, through proceedings in Na.Ka.No.5198/A3/2017 dated 11.04.2017, the 3rd respondent communicated to the 4th respondent that sanction for the proposal was not necessary. The petitioner also challenged the order of dismissal by preferring an appeal before the 2nd respondent. However, in proceedings dated 10.11.2017, the 2nd respondent held that he did not have jurisdiction to pass an order in the appeal, as the matter pertained to a self-financing unaided college.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Regulation Act, 1976, are applicable to the 4th respondent college, even though it is an unaided institution. As per the above regulation, the college should have a college committee, which is responsible for carrying out general administration, appointing teachers, and taking disciplinary action. The educational agency is bound by the decisions of the college committee. It is further submitted that the 4th respondent ought to have complied with Section 19(1) of the Act, which states that no person shall be removed, dismissed, brought down in rank, or otherwise terminated without the approval of the competent authority.

Discussion:

5. The long and short point put forth by the petitioner is that his order of dismissal required the approval of the 3rd respondent and that he also had the right to appeal before the 2nd respondent. Initially, when he was placed under suspension by the 3rd respondent, he claimed that only the college committee had the authority to initiate action against him, not the 3rd respondent. The same stand was taken by him when the charge memo was issued against him.

6. Even the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Regulation Act, 1976, prescribes that the college committee is the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, it can be concluded that the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the 4th respondent, including the appointment of an inquiry officer, were in accordance with the powers conferred on the college committee.

7. The petitioner did not challenge the charge memo by stating that it was issued by the 3rd respondent, who is incompetent to issue the same. Then the approval for extension of suspension