IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA Dr.I.Amalraj ..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Secretary Education Department Fort St George, Chennai

600 009.

2. The Director Of College Education

9th Floor Evk Sampath Building, College Road, Chennai

3. The Regional Joint Director Of Collegiate Education O/o. The Regional Joint Director Institute Of Advance Study I Education Campus, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.

4. Loyola College Rep By Its Secretary And Correspondent, Nungambakkan Chennai 600 034.

..Respondent(s)

Prayer:- Writ Petition is filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records of the 4th respondent with respect to the proceedings bearing the nomenclature ORDER dated 23.04.2024 and quash the same and consequently direct the 4th respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.T.Gowthaman, Senior Counsel for Dr.S.Karpagapriya For Respondent(s): Ms.Mythreye Chandru, SGP for R.1 to R.3.

Mr.Godson Swaminathan for M/s.Issac Chambers for R.4

ORDER

Challenging his dismissal order passed by the 4th respondent dated

23.04.2024, the petitioner is before this Court.

2. The short facts are as follows:-

3. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Professor in the 4th respondent college on 18.06.2012 and was confirmed in service on 08.01.2014. Prior to this, he had served in reputed institutions such as St. Joseph’s College, Trichy.

4. In the year 2017, a complaint was lodged by one Dr. J. Merline Shyla alleging that the petitioner and three others were responsible for circulating two anonymous defamatory letters. On the basis of this complaint, a domestic enquiry was initiated by the 4th respondent, and Mr. V. Paul Das, a retired District Judge, was appointed as the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry and after examining the witnesses and perusing the documents, exonerated the petitioner by his report dated 03.04.2018, holding that the charges were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

5. After the report of the enquiry officer, the 4th respondent had issued a show cause notice proposing to impose punishment by rejecting the findings of the enquiry officer. This was challenged by the petitioner by filing WP.No.16697 of 2019. However, the Writ Petition was partly allowed by order dated 08.03.2019 in and by which the impugned show cause notice was quashed and the respondents were given an opportunity to issue a fresh show cause notice setting out all the facts and circumstances and providing reasons for deviating from the enquiry report, and to communicate the same to the petitioner. The petitioner was also given an opportunity to submit his explanation/objections to the show cause notice to be issued. Thereafter, a fresh show cause notice dated 08.02.2020 was issued, which was once again challenged by the petitioner in W.P. No. 5410 of 2020. By order dated 20.11.2023, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to submit his reply to the said notice, and directing the Management to pass orders after considering the explanation given by the petitioner. The petitioner would submit that the 4th respondent had brushed aside the explanation given by him and proceeded to dismiss the petitioner from service vide impugned order dated 23.04.2024. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

6. The 3rd respondent filed a counter stating that respondents 1 to 3 are neither necessary nor proper parties to the proceedings, as there is no cause of action against them.

7. The 4th respondent had filed a counter affidavit, inter alia, denying the allegations made by the petitioner and justifying the impugned order by stating that, despite being given several opportunities to submit his explanation to the show cause notice issued to him, the petitioner failed to respond, and consequently, the impugned order was