Government education departments lack the legal jurisdiction to directly initiate disciplinary action or suspend employees of private aided colleges, as such authority is vested exclusively in the college management under the relevant legal framework.

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the first respondent vide proceedings in TNDCE/298/2025-G4 dated 29.05.2025 and the consequential impugned order passed by the first respondent vide proceedings in TNDCE/298/G4/2025-1 dated 30.05.2025, whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension on the basis of the report of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department. 2. This Court, while admitting the matter, having taken note of the fact that the petitioner herein is an employee of a private management and that the disciplinary authority in respect of employees of a private educational institution is the management alone, found that the first respondent herein lacks competency to place the petitioner under suspension and to issue the impugned proceedings. Therefore, an interim stay was granted on 17.06.2025 and the same has been extended from time to time.

3. The respondents filed a counter affidavit along with a vacate stay petition. A perusal of the said counter affidavit reveals that there is nothing to show that the first respondent has jurisdiction to issue the impugned proceedings. On the other hand, the counter affidavit proceeds to say that the petitioner, who is working as a Principal, is also functioning as a Correspondent and that the Correspondent, being part of the management, is not inclined to take any action against the petitioner herein in his capacity as Principal. Therefore, according to the respondents, the first respondent acted in accordance with law in issuing the impugned proceedings.

4. Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, reiterated the said contentions and submitted that the college in which the petitioner is working is an aided college and that a huge amount of public funds are sanctioned as grant every year and therefore, it is obligatory on the part of the first respondent to look into the affairs of the private college where the petitioner is working.

5. This Court is unable to agree with the contentions raised in the counter affidavit as well as by the learned Additional Government Pleader for the reason that in case there is any mismanagement in the aided college, it is always open for the respondents to initiate appropriate action against the management. Admittedly, there are several provisions empowering the respondents herein to initiate appropriate action against the management for any irregularity in discharge of their duties. However, in the instant case, the first respondent, instead of exercising his powers and taking appropriate action against the management, has issued the impugned proceedings which power is otherwise conferred only on the management.

6. As the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings or take disciplinary action is specifically vested with the management of a private aided college, the Commissioner, namely, the first respondent, cannot be said to possess the power to issue the impugned proceedings. Admittedly, the impugned proceedings have been issued without jurisdiction. In such circumstances, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned proceedings on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, both the impugned proceedings issued by the first respondent are hereby quashed.

7. However, it is made clear that if the respondents intend to take any action against the alleged mismanagement of the college in question, it is always open for them to proceed in accordance with law.

8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.

Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.