IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 17.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR E.Raghuraman S/o.T.Ramalingam ... Petitioner vs.

Annamalai University Rep. By its Registrar Annamalai Nagar Chidambaram – 608 002. … Respondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order in C-4/1550/2004 dated 02.12.2016 on the file of the respondent and further quash the punishment order dated 03.12.2007 in University Order No.1278/2007(c) on the file of the respondent, as illegal, incompetent and wholly without justification and further direct the respondent to restore all service benefits together with interest.

* prayer amended as per order dated 11.01.2024 in W.M.P.No.2346 of 2023 in W.P.No.395 of 2017 For Petitioner : Ms.V.Srimathi For Respondent : Mr.S.Nambi Arooran M/s.Ajmal Associates (Law Firm)

*****

O R D E R

The petitioner challenges the orders dated 03.12.2007 and 02.12.2016 passed by the respondent University. By order dated 03.12.2007, the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. By the subsequent order dated 02.12.2016, the request made by the petitioner to revoke the said punishment came to be rejected.

2. The petitioner, while serving as a Lecturer in the respondent University, was issued a charge memo alleging that he was implicated in connection with the death of one Ms. Chetna, a III Year student of Instrumentation Engineering in the University, on 26.03.2007, by way of abetement of suicide. A criminal case was registered against the petitioner and he was arrested. Pending trial in the said criminal case, the respondent passed the impugned orders.

3. Ms. V. Srimathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned order of punishment was passed without conducting an enquiry as stipulated under Clause 15 of the Standing Orders of the respondent University. Therefore, according to her, the impugned orders are arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of the principles of natural justice. She further submitted that the criminal case ultimately ended in acquittal of the petitioner and, therefore, the allegation that the petitioner had abetted the suicide of the student is devoid of substance.

4. Per contra, Mr. S. Nambi Arooran, learned counsel of M/s. Ajmal Associates (Law Firm), appearing on behalf of the respondent University, submitted that an enquiry was conducted by a Sub-Committee of the Syndicate, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and that a report was submitted holding that the charges against the petitioner stood proved. In the absence of any perversity or arbitrariness in the findings of the said Committee, the impugned order passed by the respondent University does not warrant interference by this Court.

5. The submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, as well as the materials available on record, have been duly considered.

6. Subsequent to the registration of the FIR, the petitioner was issued a letter calling upon him to participate in the enquiry, which he accepted. A Sub-Committee was constituted by the Syndicate to enquire into the allegations levelled against the petitioner. Though it is stated that the Sub- Committee submitted a report holding that the charges stood proved, the respondent University has not placed any material on record to substantiate that the enquiry was conducted after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Further, the said report has not been placed before this Court to establish that the petitioner had, in fact, participated in the enquiry proceedings.

7. Clause 15 of the Standing Orders deals with the imposition of punishment for misconduct or incompetence. It provides that the grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced to the form of definite charge or charges, which shall be communicated to the person charged, t