AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner, Lecturer in Thiagarajar College of Engineering, Madurai seeks for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for
the records relating to the order of the second respondent dated 1.4.2003, quash the same and to direct the respondents to confer all the
consequential benefits to the petitioner.
The petitioner is a Lecturer in the second respondent college. Aggrieved against the impugned charge memo,the petitioner has approached this
Court. The following are the charges framed against the petitioner.
CHARGE NO.1
Knowing well that an examiner entrusted with the work of evaluating answer scripts should not evaluate the answer scripts of his kith and kin and
relations, Dr.S.Vasanth Kumar, Lecturer in Chemistry has evaluated the Answer script of his daughter Ms.V.Jeropha Shekinah relating to Applied
Chemistry (Code No.D23) during April 2002 Exams. The action of Dr.S.Vasanth Kumar in having so evaluated the answer script of his daughter
is violative of the regulation and practice of central evaluation in our College.
CHARGE NO.2
According to the agreement executed by members of the teaching staff of the College in form Appendix 2, Dr.S.Vasanth Kumar as per his
agreement shall devote his whole time to the duties of his employment as a Lecturer and that he shall conform to all the rules and regulations for the
time being in force in the College and obey all lawful orders and directions, as he shall, from time to time receive from any authorized officer of our
College. The acts of Dr.S.Vasanth Kumar as reported in the preceding paragraphs are violative of the above conditions in the agreement.The
bringing into the College of leaflets, periodicals, books and other printed materials, keeping them in his cup-board and table in his cubicle and that
too in large numbers,preaching Christianity and teachings of Jesus and persuading his colleague and co-employees (gardener and attender) to
convert to Christianity are in clear violation of the terms of the agreement executed by Dr.S.Vasanth Kumar. Preaching Christianity, persuading
colleague and co-employees (gardener and attender) to convert to Christianity and presenting books containing materials wounding their religious
feelings and sentiments who are Hindus, damaging the reputation of Hindu Gods and held in reverence by Hindus are not expected of
Dr.S.Vasanth Kumar and is beyond the scope of his employment as a Lecturer in our College.
Aggrieved by the framing of the charges, the petitioner has approached this Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner raised the following three
contentions before this Court as against impugned charge memo.
(i) The Governing Council is the proper authority and there is no properly constituted Governing Council and hence the charge memo against the
petitioner is without jurisdiction.
(ii) Charge No.2 does not relate to any formulated misconduct and therefore the said charge is liable to be quashed.
(iii)The entire action is vitiated by malafides of the correspondent.
In respect of the first of his contentions that the Governing Council is not properly constituted, learned counsel relies on clause 9 of the Grant-in-
Aid code of the Madras Technical Education Department. Clause 9 is as follows:-
CONDITIONS OF AID;
Governing Council. Every institution on behalf of which aid is sought, shall be under the Management of a Governing Council.
(i)Constitution:- The Council may have a not exceeding 20 members; it will be preferable to have about 15 members including the Principal, who
will be the ex-officio Member-Secretary. One of the members shall be the Treasurer, to be appointed with the concurrence of the Director. Not
more than 50 per cent of the total members shall be nominated by the Trust, Society, individual or group founding the institution. The remaining 50
per cent shall consist of :
(a) A representative of the All-India Council for Technical Education.
(b) The Director of Technical Education (or his representative), who will represent the Government.
(c) A nominee of the Central Government.
(d) A nominee of the University to which the institution is affiliated in the case of an Engineering College and a nominee of the State Board of
Technical Education and Training, Madras in the case of other institutions.
(e) Remaining members nominated by the Director from among officers of the following departments of the State Government, viz., Industries,
Public works, Highways, etc., or of autonomous bodies like the Madras State Electricity Board, in all cases with the concurrence of the competent
administrative superior of the officer.
(ii) Functions:- Its main functions will be:-
(1) To manage the affairs of the institution.
(2) To appoint such staff as may be required for the efficient management of the affairs of the institution in accordance with the orders of the
Government in force, from time to time;
(3)To enter into service contracts;
(4)To impose penalties on the members of the staff;and
(5)To consider the Annual Report-and Audited accounts for the previous financial Year and frame the Budget estimate for the ensuing year.
(iii) Meeting- It shall meet ordinarily once in four months to transact its business. The quorum for a meeting shall be five.
(iv)it shall be answerable for the maintenance of the institutions and fulfillment of the conditions of recognition and aid including the due enforcement
of such rules of discipline as prescribed from time to time.
(v) The management may with the approval of the Director, appoint a person as Correspondent to transact the day-to-day business of the
institution.
(vi)No transfer of Management of an institution shall be made except with the permission of the Government.
From the above provisions in the Conditions of Aid, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no proper constitution of the
Council.
With reference to Charge No.2, learned counsel refers to the Form of agreement executed by the petitioner and it is contended that the nature
of the charge/ misconduct under charge No.2 is not formulated as a misconduct and therefore charge No.2 is liable to be quashed as against
allegations of malafide. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the writ petitioner is a Christian and that the third respondent who is the
Vice Chariman and correspondent of the College is a member of the Vishva Hindu Parishad movement and therefore he was a fanatical Hindu and
he wanted to see to it that the petitioner does not become the Head of the Department and that only in those circumstances the entire charge memo
has been issued.
Mr.G.Masilamani, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent contends that there is no basis for the allegation of improper
constitution of Governing Council and refers to the proceedings of the Director of Technical Education dated 11.12.2002 in support of his
contention that the Council is properly constituted. Reference is also made to paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit in which the list of persons who
have attended the meeting of the Governing Council on 24.3.2003 is given and that the minimum required quorum of five members is satisfied. As
regards allegation of malafides, learned counsel also refers to the separate affidavit filed by the third respondent denying the allegations of malafides
or bias of any religious feelings against the writ petitioner.
I have considered the submissions of both sides. The writ petition is directed against the charge memo and it is settled proposition that there can
no interference on the issuance of a charge memo except on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and serious allegations of malafides. I do not
propose to go into the merits of the contentions of the petitioner as regards the nature and proof of the charges, as it is open to the petitioner to
face the charges before the appropriate authority. The jurisdictional issue which is raised before this Court is the alleged improper constitution of
the Governing Council. On a perusal of the materials placed by the respondent I am inclined to hold that the allegation of the petitioner is not
properly substantiated. The proceedings of the Director of Technical Education dated 11.12.2002 No.D.Dis.44612/A4/2002, clearly shows that
in terms of the conditions relating to Grant-in-Aid, the Director of Technical Education has accorded approval of the re-constitution of the
Governing Council of the respondent College with the members mentioned therein as follows:
Sl.No Members Interest Specified
1 Chairman
2 Vice-Chairman & Correspondent
3 Dr.T.R.Natesan,
Former Director of Technical Education,
Former Vice-Chancellor,
Gandhigram Rural University and Emeritus Professor,
Anna University.Member(Management Nominee)
4 Dr.R.Subbayyan
Former Vice-Chancellor of Bharathiar University, Coimbatore.
Member,(Management Nominee)
5 Mr.Venu Srinivasan,
Managing Director,
M/s.Sundaram Clayton, Chennai.
Member, (Management Nominee)
6 The Regional Officer & Director,
AICTE, Southern Regional Office, Chennai
Nominee of the Regional Committee, (Ex-Officio)
7 Nominee of the AICTE
8 The Director of Technical Education,
Chennai 25.
Nominee of the State Government (Ex-Officio)
9 Dr.V.M.Periasamy,
Principal,
A.C.College of Engineering & Technology,
Karaikudi
Nominee of the DTE
10 Mr.S.Mahalingam,
Executive Vice-President,
Tata Consultancy Services,
Chennai
Member, Representing Anna University
11 The Principal,
Thiagarajar College of Engineering,
Ex-Officio,Members Secretary
Therefore, I am unable to sustain the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Governing Council is not properly constituted.
Mere reference to clause 9 of the conditions of aid containing the list of officials and the representatives of the institution being entitled to be
included in the council and stating that all the said categories mentioned therein are not included in the College Council, cannot lead to the
conclusion that the Council is without jurisdiction. There are bound to be some vacancies at any given point of time and the mere fact that there are
vacancies and unfilled posts will not lead to the inference that the council is not properly constituted. It is no doubt true that clause 9 of the
conditions extracted above lists several possible nominees from various sources. But the mere fact that some of the vacancies are not filled up or
that there are no nominees from some of the sources as listed in clause 9 cannot lead to the position that the Governing Council is not properly
constituted. It is pertinent to note that no minimum number is provided except for fixing the quorum at five. The following five members attended
the meeting and hence the fact that the quorum was satisfied cannot be in dispute. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit of the third respondent, it
is clearly stated that the following members had attended the council meeting:
(1)Mr.T.Kannan Vice Chairman and Correspondent
(2)Dr.V.M.Periasamy, Nominee of DTE Principal, A.C.College of Tech, Karaikudi.
(3)Dr.R.Subbayyan Management Nominee
(4)Dr.T.R.Natesan Principal & Ex officio
(5) Dr.V.Abhai Kumar Member Secretary.
As stated earlier the College Council is also approved by the appropriate authority. There being a properly constituted council with minimum
quorum having attended the impugned meeting, I am unable to sustain the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the council is not
properly constituted.
On the question of malafides, apart from stating that the third respondent was a Hindu and that he is a member of Vishva Hindu Parishad, no
other material has been placed before the Court to show that the third respondent has any religious bias against the writ petitioner. In para 3 of the
affidavit, the petitioner has stated that the third respondent might have been ill-advised that unless disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the
petitioner, the petitioner will have definite claim for the post of the Head of Department, and hence the third respondent had taken steps to ensure
that the post was not given to the petitioner in as much as the petitioner happened to be a Christian. He has further stated that it is only in the
respondent College Gita Classes are conducted at the instance of the third respondent and that the third respondent was a fanatic member of the
Vishva Hindu Parishad movement. The third respondent has filed a separate counter denying the said allegations. In his Counter dated 4th March
2004, the third respondent has stated that he does not have any affiliation towards Vishva Hindu Parishad nor he is a fanatic. He has stated that he
joined the college as Correspondent in 1984 and he does not have any bias against any religion. He has also listed certain facts for consideration as
follows:-
(1)Laboratory facilities were extended to the petitioner during 1989 for doing his research for his Ph.D.
(2) He was granted unearned leave on half pay for 60 days in connection with submission of his PhD thesis to the Madurai Kamarajar University.
(3) He was appointed Deputy Warden of Men''s Hostel from November 1997 to February 2002.
(4) He was Deputy Controller of Examinations from October 1991 to July 1993.
(5) His daughter Miss.Jeropha Sheikinah was given admission under the management quota.
The third respondent further states that there are about 18 staff members who are Christians and every year Christian students are admitted
under management quota. It is also stated that nobody had ever complained of any religious bias against the third respondent. The College was
established in 1958 and is managed by a Trust and is being run for the past 50 years. The allegation that Gita classes are conducted is also not
true.
In the background of above facts, I am not satisfied that the allegations of malafide as projected against the third respondent are true. The fact
that the third respondent is a Hindu cannot automatically lead to the assumption that he is biased against the writ petitioner. Even assuming for a
moment that the respondent is a member of Vishwa Hindu Parishad (which is not a banned organisation) that by itself will not lead to the
presumption that he is a fanatic. The petitioner has not filed any Reply statement disputing the various statements made by the third respondent in
his counter.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner also referred to the agreement executed between the parties in terms of contract that the nature of the
allegation, that charge No.2 is not formulated as a misconduct and is liable to be quashed. The said submission relates to the merits of the charges
and the petitioner is at liberty to submit his objections and to face the enquiry and produce all materials to show that the charges cannot be
sustained on merits. It is not desirable to entertain such objections at this stage when the petitioner has come forward seeking to quash the charge
memo.
In the result, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned proceedings. Writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently,connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.