Disciplinary proceedings initiated against a public servant on grounds previously adjudicated and found meritless, or where the employer has already affirmed the regularity of the disputed action, are perverse, mala fide, and legally unsustainable.

ORDER :

P.T. ASHA, J.

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

“To call for the records from the 1^st Respondent relating to the proceedings of the 1^st Respondent dated 05.02.2024 bearing reference No. G.O.(D)No. 25 Higher Education (F1) Department read with the consequential charge memos dated 25.06.2024, 28.08.2024 both bearing reference No. Charge Memo No. 4662/J5/2024 issued by the 2^nd respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, vindictive, unconstitutional, without jurisdiction and to consequently direct the respondent to pay full salary and allowance for the period from 05.02.2024 by treating the said period as service which the petitioner would have been entitled to but for the impugned proceedings.”

2. The facts as set out by the petitioner is herein below narrated.

3. The petitioner was selected through the Teacher Recruitment Board in the year 1996 and posted as a Lecturer in the H.H.Rajah’s College, Pudukottai. In the year 2009, he was promoted as an Associate Professor and on 09.03.2023 as Principal. Thereafter, he was posted to the Government Arts College, Kadayanallur, Tenkasi District.

4. Pursuant to the orders of the 2^nd respondent, the petitioner had issued an advertisement in the newspaper apart from notifying names from the employment exchange for the post of Assistant Programmer for the Government Arts College, Kadayanallur. One of the educational qualifications for the said post was a diploma in Computer Science.

5.In response to the advertisement, 40 candidates submitted their application and 5 sponsored by the employment exchange. The selection of the candidates was done after following due procedure as per rules.

6. On 16.10.2023, 18 out of 45 candidates appeared for an interview. The selection committee was headed by the petitioner along with two Assistant Professors of Computer Science. The selected candidate Aruna had secured 254 marks out of 300 marks and she was selected and selection order was issued to her. The selected candidate possessed a higher educational qualification i.e., B.E (Computer Science) and M.E (Computer Science). Thereafter, she joined duty on 27.10.2023.

7. On 12.12.2023, the petitioner was transferred to the Government Arts and Science College, Jumbukulam, Ranipet District and thereafter suspended by order of the 1^st respondent dated 05.02.2024. It appears that one Dharani, who was an unsuccessful candidate having secured 82 marks out of 300 marks had filed WP. (MD).No.9272 of 2024 challenging the selection which was dismissed by order of the Court dated 16.04.2024. She had also made a complaint through her father S.Rajavelu.

8. On 25.06.2024, the 2^nd respondent issued show cause notice to the selected candidate Aruna and had also ordered departmental proceedings against the petitioner stating that he had selected an unqualified candidate, vide charge memo dated 25.06.2024. As against the show cause notice dated 25.06.2024, the said Aruna had filed writ petition in WP.(MD).No.15064 of 2024, which after contest was allowed on 09.07.2024. It is after the orders in WP(MD).No.15064 of 2024, that the second charge memo dated 28.08.2024 was issued to the petitioner adding the word “favoritism”. Therefore, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition.

9. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3^rd respondent for the self and on behalf of other respondents, wherein, he would deny the contentions made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. One of their contention is that the selected candidate Aruna is the wife of one K