Dr. N. Lingappan vs The Syndicate Anna University and Others

P. Jyothimani, J.—This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the third respondent dated 15.11.2000 in and by which the third

respondent has intimated the petitioner by considering the letter of the petitioner dated 5.5.2000, stating that his appeal against the punishment

imposed on him has been placed before the Syndicate of the Anna University on 18.10.2000 and the Syndicate resolved to uphold the decisions

of the Vice-Chancellor regarding the punishment imposed on the petitioner.

The petitioner is working as an Assistant Professor of Chemistry, M.I.T., Campus, Chennai, having been transferred from G.C.T., Coimbatore

to Anna University. It is the case of the petitioner that the fourth respondent, Head of the Department of Chemistry of Anna University has given a

complaint on 30.9.1998 to the third respondent against the petitioner stating that on the said date, when a Research scholar Mr. S. Rengarraj was

using e-mail facilities in connection with the symposium, the fourth respondent''s son M. Aravind Velayutham who also happens to be the I year

B.E., student, came to the department with his friend one D. Chidambaram, the petitioner entered into the office of the fourth respondent and

shouted at them and forcibly kept them outside the room and locked them outside. He also threatened the son of the fourth respondent and his

friend. There was a preliminary enquiry constituted by the third respondent consisting of Dr. S. Natarajan, Deen as a Convener, apart from Dr. M.

Abdullah Khan and Dr. R. Asokamani, Members to conduct an enquiry about the alleged misbehaviour of the petitioner with the staff and

students. The said fourth respondent appears to have given another complaint to the third respondent on 16.10.1998, complaining that he has

suspicion that the petitioner has written anonymous telegram to the Registrar in respect of the selection of a Lecturer and also imputing that the

petitioner has received money in respect of a selection, etc. There was another complaint on 26.10.1998 of an anonymous letter sent to the

General Manager. M.R.L., Chennai in respect of the symposium and the allegation is that the said letter has been stated to have been written by

the petitioner. In respect of the complaint of the fourth respondent dated 30.9.1998, as stated above, the enquiry committee constituted by the

third respondent has gone into the said complaint and filed a report dated 18.11.1998 finding that in respect of two incidents whereby the research

scholar and the student were threatened in the room of the Head of Department and the anonymous letter addressed to Dr. S.P. Elangovan dated

29.9.1998 were proved to have been done by the petitioner and the committee has recommended severe disciplinary action to curb the said

misbehaviour. It was thereafter, a charge sheet was framed against the petitioner dated 14.1.1999, framing two charges with necessary materials

and directing the petitioner to submit his explanation. Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted his explanation dated 5.4.1999 denying the charges.

Mr. P. Murugan, Advocate was appointed as an enquiry officer to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner and enquiry officer has

submitted his report on 23.11.1999. A provisional conclusion was arrived at by the Vice-Chancellor, agreeing with the enquiry officer''s report to

withhold the increment of the petitioner for two years without cumulative effect and the petitioner was directed to submit his explanation. The

petitioner has also submitted his explanation on 31.1.2000. Ultimately, by an order dated 3.3.2000, the second respondent Vice-Chancellor, being

the competent authority to impose punishment has confirmed the provisional conclusion and awarded the punishment of withholding of two years

increment without cumulative effect. In the said order, the second respondent has also stated that an appeal lies against the punishment to the

Syndicate within sixty days. Accordingly, the petitioner has preferred an appeal to the Chairman of the Syndicate in his appeal dated 5.5.2000 and

admittedly the Syndicate after considering the appeal has confirmed the order of punishment imposed by the second respondent as communicated

by the third respondent in the impugned proceedings dated 15.11.2000.

Aggrieved against the order of the Syndicate namely the first respondent as communicated by the third respondent, the petitioner has filed the

present writ petition contending inter alia that the entire proceedings without giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner are vitiated since the same

is against the principles of natural justice. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the impugned order is a non-speaking order without

assigning any reason. It is also the case of the petitioner that the impugned order is in violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.

On the other hand, the third respondent has filed the counter affidavit, contraverting the allegations especially relating to the principles of natural

justice. The third respondent relies upon the two letters of the petitioner dated 14.7.1999 and 7.9.1999 to show that the petitioner has voluntarily

tendered his apology for his involvement in the allegation and expressed his regret. It is also the case of the third respondent that inspite of the

specific admission of the misconduct by the petitioner, the fifth respondent proceeded with enquiry by giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner.

It is also the case of the petitioner that inspite of opportunity given to the petitioner to cross examine the fourth respondent who is the complainant,

the petitioner has not availed the said opportunity, but, on the other hand, even during the enquiry, the petitioner has admitted that he has written

the letters of apology voluntarily and based on the same, the enquiry officer has filed his report which resulted in the passing of the order of

punishment by the second respondent as confirmed by the Syndicate namely the first respondent.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the respondents.

Mr. G. Venkataraman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by placing reliance on the Statute On Disciplinary Proceedings of Anna

University, points out to Appendix 1 of the said procedure referring to clause 6. Clause 6 of Appendix 1, enumerates the procedureto be followed

among the University Employees, which contemplates that in respect of any order imposing penalty by an authority other than the Vice Chancellor

or the Syndicate, an appeal lies to the Vice-Chancellor. In case, where a penalty is imposed by the Vice-Chancellor, an appeal lies to the

Syndicate, as seen in clause 6(i)(b). The said procedure also contemplates in clause 6 (iii), the procedure to be followed by the appellate authority.

The said clause 6(iii) reads as follows:

6 (iii)In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in these Statutes, the appellate authority shall consider,

(a)Whether the facts on which the order was based have been established.

(b)Whether the facts established afford sufficient ground for taking action; and

(c )Whether the penalty is excessive, adequate or inadequate, and after such consideration, shall pass such order as it thinks proper.

According to the writ petitioner, inasmuch as said clause contemplates that when an appeal is filed, the appellate authority shall consider whether

the facts on which the order was placed has been established, as to whether such facts shall afford sufficient ground for taking action and as to

whether the penalty given by the punishing authority is excessive, adequate or inadequate. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, there

should be some evidence to show that the first respondent Syndicate has in fact considered while passing the order as an appellate authority. The

learned counsel also submitted that as per the Statutes of Anna University, the Vice-Chancellor is the ex-officio Chairman of the Syndicate, as seen

from Section 17(3) of the Anna University Act, 1978 (Tamilnadu Act 30 of 1978).

According to the learned counsel, a perusal of the impugned order which refers about the Syndicate results dated 18.10.2000 does not show

that the Vice-Chancellor, being the Chairman of the Syndicate has not participated in the impugned resolution inasmuch as he himself was the

punishing authority also. In the absence of such evidence, it should be presumed that the Vice-Chancellor being the Chairman of the Syndicate has

passed the resolution under his Chairmanship. In such circumstances, the resolution should be vitiated since the Vice-Chancellor who has passed

the original order of punishment cannot also sit as a Chairman in the Syndicate. It was in those circumstances, this Court has directed the

respondent University to produce the Minutes of the Syndicate Resolution. The learned counsel has also produced the Minutes of the Syndicate

Resolution and the resolution No. 137.3.7 reads as follows:

137.3.7 TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY DR. N. LINGAPPAN, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR/CHEMISTRY AGAINST

THEJ PUNISHMENT IMPOSED BY THE VICE-CHANCELLOR.

RESOLVED TO UPHOLD the decision taken by the Vice-Chancellor, and the punishment imposed thereof.

I have also perused the files relating to the appeal produced by the learned counsel for the respondent University. I found from the file that all the

grounds of appeal raised by the petitioner has been in fact considered by the Syndicate, as the note sent to the Syndicate reveal the same.

However, the other question as to whether the Vice-Chancellor being the Chairman of the Syndicate as per the Anna University Act has in fact

participated in the Syndicate Meeting, while passing the resolution in question, has not been clarified by the learned counsel. Except to say that the

Vice-Chancellor would not have participated in the said resolution, there is no substantive materials produced before this Court to show that when

such resolution was taken for discussion, the Vice-Chancellor has abstained. In such circumstances, in my view, the matter must be referred afresh

to the appellate authority namely the Syndicate for fresh consideration in the light of the observation made above.

That apart, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in respect of the said two letters, due opportunity should have been

given to the petitioner to substantiate the charges framed against the petitioner. In this regard, it is relevant to point out the letters of the petitioner

under which the petitioner is stated to have admitted the charges. In the letter dated 14.7.1999 written by the petitioner to the third respondent, the

petitioner specifically states as follows:

With respect to the above reference, I submitted my explanation to the University on 26.02.99. Subsequently an enquiry officer was appointed.

The enquiry is still pending.

In the meanwhile with respect to the allegations said against me, I tender my apology to the University authorities for my part of involvement in the

said allegations. I assure that I will not indulge in such things in future. Hence, I request you sir to drop the proceedings in this connection.

In the said letter, the petitioner has tendered his apology to the University authorities for his part of involvement in the allegation. He has also

undertaken that he will not indulge in such activity in future. In the other letter dated 7.9.1999 written by the petitioner to the respondent Head of

the Department, he states as follows:

As I felt that I am being suppressed instead of getting encouraging support to do the time bound project for NLC, Neyveli (Project of this kind for

the first time in the Chemistry Department) and helplessness in the university I became depressed, emotional and lost patience and have written few

hurting words about Dr. V. Murugesan in the letter to MRL.

On the complaint from you Sir, I have been issued a memo by the University. I reaslise my mistake and tender my apology for having hurt your

feelings. I am very much sorry for the same. Now I request you toj offer your recommendations in my letter to University to drop the proceedings

in this connection against me.

In that letter, he specifically says that he realised the mistake and tendered apology and he has also requested the fourth respondent to

recommend to the University to drop all proceedings based on the same. It cannot be said that these letters are obtained from the petitioner by any

coercive methods, especially when the petitioner himself is a highly educated person with Doctorate in Chemistry. The submissions made in the

letters are unequivocal admission of his involvement in the incident and any person can come to a conclusion that by these two letters, he has

admitted his involvement in the charge. Inspite of the admission, the enquiry officer has conducted an enquiry and ultimately the order of penalty

came to be passed against the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on various reported judgments, especially relating to legal bias, including the judgments of

this Court in the case of K. Chelliah Vs. Chairman Industrial Finance Corporation of India and Another, and the Hon''ble Supreme Court''s

judgment in the case of Amar Nath Chowdhury Vs. Braithwaite and Company Ltd. and Others, to show that in respect of the appeal against the

dismissal order issued by the Managing Director, there is a legal bias in the sense that the Managing Director as a disciplinary authority, himself has

passed the order.

It is no doubt true that if the Vice-Chancellor being the original authority to impose the punishment, has participated in the Syndicate being the

appellate authority as its Chairman, in respect of the disciplinary proceedings relating to the petitioner, the same will certainly vitiate the order of the

appellate authority.

As stated above, the learned counsel for the University is unable to produce any record to show that in the impugned resolution of the

Syndicate relating to the petitioner''s misconduct, the Vice-Chancellor has not participated as its Chairman. In these circumstances, it is only proper

for this Court to remand the matter back to the appellate authority to consider the appeal of the petitioner afresh and pass appropriate orders. As

far as the order of the original authority in imposing the punishment, this Court is not inclined to interfere, especially in the circumstances that the

petitioner in his unequivocal terms, has accepted his involvement in the charge and nothing warrants by any interference as far as the punishment

imposed by the original authority namely the Vice Chancellor is concerned.

In these circumstances, the writ petition is ordered in the following terms:

The impugned order of the third respondent dated 15.11.2000 communicating the resolution of the Syndicate dated 18.10.2000, by upholding the

decisions of the Vice-Chancellor in respect of the punishment awarded by him against the petitioner is set aside, the Syndicate of the Anna

University namely the first respondent is directed to consider afresh the appeal of the petitioner dated 5.5.2000 in respect of the punishment of

withholding of increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect imposed by the Vice Chancellor and pass orders within a period of

eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner.

Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of in the above above terms. There will be no order as to cost. Any observation made by this Court

regarding the order of the Original authority namely the Vice Chancellor, should not be taken into consideration, being the appellate authority, while

deciding the appeal and the appeal shall be decided in accordance with law.