W.P.(MD) No.22630 of 2021

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 14.03.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

W.P.(MD) No.22630 of 2021 and

W.M.P.(MD) Nos.19129 of 2021 & 3632 of 2022

Nageswari Ramani

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Registrar,

Madurai Kamaraj University,

Palkalai Nagar, Madurai.

2.The Principal,

Madurai Kamaraj University College,

Alagarkoil Main Road, Madurai-625 002.

... Respondents

Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to

call for the records from the office of the 3^rd respondent pertaining

to the impugned order dated 29.06.2021 passed by the 2^nd respondent

in Memo No.MKUC/Estt/1/2021 quash the same and consequentially

direct the 1^st respondent to reinstate the petitioner to service in

her post of Assistant Professor.

For Petitioner :

Mr.P.Paranthaman

For Respondents:

Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar

for M/s.Isaac Chambers

O R D E R

The order of suspension, dated 29.06.2021, placing the writ

petitioner under suspension on account of arrest and detention of

the petitioner under judicial custody beyond 48 hours as per FIR

No.598 dated 22.06.2021 registered under Sections 294(b), 341, 323,

506(i) IPC, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2.The petitioner is holding the responsible position of

Assistant Professor in the Department of Computer Science in the

University. Since the petitioner in the present case involved in a

criminal case, the respondents have followed the procedures and

placed her under suspension.

3.With reference to the ground taken by the petitioner that

the Principal is not the authority, this Court is of no doubt that

any immediate superior as per the orders of the Vice Chancellor may

place an employee under suspension. However, the final order is to

be passed by the competent authority under the University Statute.

Thus, the immediate superior is empowered to place an employee under

suspension. Thus, there is no infirmity as such in respect of the

1/7

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

W.P.(MD) No.22630 of 2021

impugned order.

4.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-

University made a submission that the University is possessing all

relevant documents for the purpose of continuance of departmental

disciplinary proceedings.

5.Mere pendency of the criminal case is not a bar for

continuance of the departmental disciplinary proceedings. The

principles in this regard are summarised in W.P.(MD) No.14356 of

2019 and this Court, by order dated 08.02.2022, passed the following

order:-

“5.In view of the complex nature of issues raising

doubt in the minds of the disciplinary authority, this

Court is inclined to summarize the following principles,

which are all to be followed in the cases of simultaneous

proceedings (i.e., departmental disciplinary proceedings

and criminal cases).

“(a) it is a settled law that criminal case

and the departmental disciplinary proceedings may

be initiated simultaneously as the case may be;

(b) an order of suspension, if required,

may be issued in the prescribed format as per the

rules;

(c) if the records and evidences are

available with the disciplinary authority, then

without any loss of time, charge memorandum shall

be issued and the disciplinary proceedings may go

on;

(d) the question to be considered is

whether simultaneous proceedings may go on or

not?;

(e) the departmental domestic enquiry and

the criminal trial shall proceed simultaneously

and the decision in the criminal case would not

materially affect the outcome of the domestic

enquiry;

(f) the nature of both proceedings and the

test applied to reach final conclusion in the

matter are entirely different.

(g) if the case involves complicated

questions of fact and law and the disciplinary

authority is not in possession of the required