Legal legitimacy of disciplinary proceedings based on resolution authority and evidentiary standards.

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings dated

07.02.2025, whereby another Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges against the petitioner, and also challenging the Resolution Nos.8 and 9 passed by the College Council /the third respondent dated 14.03.2025, whereby the earlier Resolution No.4 dated 10.09.2024, was withdrawn. By the earlier Resolution, the College Council had requested the Secretary and the Correspondent of the College to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The impugned resolutions further condemned the alleged acts of the petitioner and recommended further action for allegedly producing a fabricated document dated 18.10.2024, as if the disciplinary proceedings had been dropped against the petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:

(i) The third respondent is a Government Aided Research and Post Graduate Co-Educational Institution Affiliated to the University of Madras. The petitioner is qualified with M.A. Tamil literature. As there was a vacancy arising on account of retirement, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor in the third respondent/College on 04.03.2003, and his appointment was duly ratified by the Education Department. While being so, the Secretary and the Correspondent of the third respondent developed enmity with the petitioner and served a charge memo dated 05.02.2021 alleging, among other things, that the petitioner held the position of General Manager in a “Foreign Business House”, while in service with the College; that he caused loss by suppression and misrepresentation of his foreign visit; that he awarded marks arbitrarily while evaluating students' answer papers; that he violated the Rule 7 of the Code of Conduct of the College; and that he holds the office of General Secretary of "Tamilnadu Muslim Munnetra Khazhagam" which is also alleged to be a violation of the conduct rules. There are a total of eight charges.

(ii) While charge memo was pending, the petitioner requested permission to engage an Advocate to assist him in the domestic enquiry, but the same was rejected. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition No.18382 of 2023, challenging the rejection order passed by the third respondent. By order dated 22.07.2024, this Court quashed the rejection order, permitted the petitioner to engage an Advocate, and directed the third respondent to complete the disciplinary proceedings within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.

(iii) The College Committee convened a meeting and, by a resolution dated 10.09.2024, resolved to revoke the resolution passed in the meeting held on 12.04.2017 and further resolved to request the Secretary and the Correspondent to drop the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in the interest of College.

(iv) Pursuant to the said resolution, the third respondent, by communication dated 18.10.2024, accepted the recommendation of the College Council and withdrew the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. Consequently, the Enquiry Officer was requested to return all the enquiry papers.

(v) While being so, once again the third respondent passed an order dated 7.02.2025 appointing another Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry on the very same set of charges, since the erstwhile Enquiry Officer had expressed his inability to continue the enquiry due to professional commitments. While the writ petition was pending, the third respondent College convened a meeting and resolved to withdraw the earlier resolution dated 20.