Disciplinary actions cannot address misconduct occurring before an individual's appointment, and failure to adhere to principles of natural justice invalidates such proceedings.

COMMON JDGMENT

(By J.Nisha Banu,J.)

A challenge in these Writ Appeals is to the common order dated 01.04.2022 passed in W.P.Nos.12768 and 12769 of 2018, by which, the Writ Petitions challenging the dismissal order as well as the imposition of penalty were allowed.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties would be referred to as the 'Writ Petitioner and the 'Appellants'.

3. Minimum facts put forth by the Writ Petitioner that are required for deciding the cases are as follows:

3.1. It is the case of the Writ Petitioner / 1^st respondent herein that he was appointed as the First Vice Chancellor of the Indian Maritime University for a period of three years from 20.11.2008 to 19.11.2011 and after expiry of three years, he was inducted as the Director of Chennai Campus of Indian Maritime University from 20.11.2011. While so, he was suspended from service with an ulterior motive on the allegations of accumulation of disproportionate wealth as well as for causing loss to the University to the tune of Rs.22,65,469.42. In respect of the 1^st charge, a charge memo dated 16.09.2016 came to be issued pending criminal proceedings in respect of i) non-intimation of large number of transactions of sale and purchase of immovable properties and huge borrowings and ii) non-intimation of declaring income under the voluntary disclosure scheme.

3.2. The Writ Petitioner submitted his explanation to the 1^st charge on 12.10.2015, stating the alleged purchase and sale of immovable properties and disclosure of income under the voluntary disclosure scheme was done during the period from 01.03.1995 to 31.01.2008, viz., much prior to his appointment as the Vice Chancellor of the Indian Maritime University. In respect of the 2^nd charge, an enquiry was conducted and after conclusion of the enquiry, the Writ Petitioner was dismissed from service on 26.042018, which was questioned in W.P.No.12768 of 2018. The order of imposition of penalty to the tune of Rs.22,65,469/- was challenged in W.P.No.12769 of 2018. Finding no merits in both orders, learned Single Judge allowed both Writ Petitions by way of a common order, holding that the alleged misconduct was related to the year 1997 and the subsequent years, prior to his appointment as the Vice Chancellor and as such, it could not be cited as the basis for disciplinary proceedings by the University. It was further held that there was a wrong invoking of provisions under Chapter 7 of the University Teaching and Non-Teaching Employees (Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules (in short the 'UTNTE Rules') against the Vice Chancellor and an Officer of the University.

3.3. According to the Writ Petitioner, when the Enquiry Officer found the charges to be not proved, the appellants cannot thrust its predetermined decisions of dismissal from service without affording an opportunity of hearing to the Writ Petitioner, especially when the period in question does not fall within the category of misconduct at all. Learned Single Judge also observed that the order of imposition of penalty under UTNTE Rules will not apply, as the Writ Petitioner cannot be treated as an employee of the University. It was further strongly observed by the learned Single Judge that the appointment of the Writ Petitioner as Vice Chancellor was independently made by the President of India and the Indian Maritime University was established only on 11.11.2008 and therefore, the Rule applicable to an employee will not apply to the Officers like that of the Writ Petitioner.

3.4. There were several irregularities in passing the orders of dismissal from service a