Employment termination must adhere to principles of natural justice, including proper notice and opportunity for defense, especially after long service.

COMMON ORDER

These writ petitions have been filed challenging the orders dated 15.11.2023, passed by the Registrar of Annamalai University, thereby removed the petitioners from service.

2. The petitioner in all the writ petitions were qualified with master decree and M.Phil and Doctorate in their respective subjects. While being so, the Annamalai university called for selection for the post of lecturers in various subjects and the petitioners were applied for the same. The selection committee had selected the petitioners in their respective post and as per the resolution passed by the selection committee, they were appointed in their respective posts, during the year

2004.

3. While being so, the Annamalai University Act , 1928 was repealed and the university was taken over by the State government by enacting the Annamalai University Act , 2013. Thereafter, the education qualification possessed by the various employees of the Annamalai University have been reviewed and concluded that the petitioners had no requisite qualification as such, they had not obtained 55% of marks in their post graduate degree. All the petitioners had obtained below 55% of marks in their post graduate degree.

4. Therefore, the petitioners were issued show cause notice in the year 2016-2017 for the first time, raising the issue of qualification of the petitioners that too, with respect to the requisite pass mark percentage of pass mark and not the lack of qualification itself. On receipt of the same, the petitioners submitted their detail explanation stating that they were appointed regularly in the year 2004 itself. On receipt of the explanation, it was accepted and no order has been passed. All of us sudden, in the year 2023, by the impugned orders, all the petitioners were removed from their respective service. Hence, they approached this Court by way of these writ petitions.

5. The learned Senior Counsel and the respective learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the impugned orders are liable to be quashed on the sole ground of violation of principles of natural justice, since the petitioners were not served with any notice before the order of termination and they were not given opportunity to submit their case. Further no enquiry was conducted and they were not given opportunity of hearing before the order of removal them from service. All the petitioners are working nearly 19 to 20 years continuously without any charge.

5.1. They further submitted that the show cause notices were issued in the year 2016-2017. When the petitioners were imposed with maximum punishment, it is mandatory on the part of the authorities to issue definite charge on the delinquent along with statements, documents and other witnesses. After conducting enquiry and after given an opportunity of hearing, then only the major penalty can be imposed on the delinquent. Approximately 56 employees were removed from service for the very same reasons. The petitioners were allowed to continue in their respective services for the past 19 to 20 years and after the long period, their qualification cannot be said that it found fault as per their norms. The impugned orders have been passed with predetermined intention and it cannot fulfill the statutory requirements of the principles of natural justice. In fact, at any point of time University Grand Commission or All India Council for Technical Education never raised any objections about their qualifications. In support of their contention, they relied upon the following judgments :-

(i) (1993) 3 SCC 591 – Dr.M.S.Mudhol and anr Vs.

S.D.Halegkar & ors (ii) (2001)3 SCC 328 – Buddhi Nath Chaudhary and ors Vs.

Abahi Kumar & ors (iii) 2001 (1) AWC 509 – Kalu Ram Vs. State of U.P. and anr. , (iv) W.P.No.27064 & 26120 of 2018 dated 12.12.2018 – V.

Premakurmari Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu and ors (v) W.A.Nos.3066 & 3235 of 2019 dated 23.09.2019 – The Director of School Education and ors Vs. S.Aruna.

6. The learned Additional Advoc