AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.T. Selvam, J.—In W.P. No. 8298 of 2003, the petitioner seeks to quash the orders of the first respondent dated 06.07.2001 and the
second respondent dated 20.03.2002. In W.P. No. 1952 of 2006, the petitioner seeks to quash the order of the respondent dated 22.12.2005.
The petitioner initially was appointed as Junior Assistant in the respondent University and subsequently, she was promoted as Assistant Section
Officer. The allegation against the petitioner is that she collected chit funds from the employees of the University and refused to repay the same.
She was issued a charge memo dated 05.12.2000 for violation of the provisions of the Bharathiyar University Employees Conduct Rules informing
as follows:
(1) the act of collecting money or personal borrowing among the co-staff is violation of statute 15(3)(i) under Chapter XVIII of Bharathiar
University i.e. she should show courtesy and attention in all transactions and not to do anything which is unbecoming of a University employee.
(2) inspite of the warning issued vide Memo. No. E3/2000 dated 18.5.2000 she did not stop above activities which is a violation of statute 15(2)
(i)(c) and (d) i.e. conform to and abide by the rules and regulations and comply with and obey all lawful orders and directions.
In response, the petitioner submitted a written statement of defence on 10.01.2001 informing that she had not conducted any chit fund at any
point of time but some of the staff members of the University had made allegations against her without any proof. She informed that as she had not
run any chit fund, there was no question of stopping the activities or disobeying the warning memo. Not satisfied with the petitioner''s explanation, a
retired District Judge, was appointed as Domestic Enquiry Officer, who commenced enquiry on 27.03.2001. The petitioner has participated in the
enquiry and has given her explanation. The enquiry officer, after examination of 22 witnesses and receipt of evidence, filed an enquiry report dated
01.06.2001 holding the charges proved. Pursuant thereto, the first respondent passed final orders on 06.07.2001 and imposed punishment of
stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect from 06.07.2001. There against, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second
respondent, which was dismissed by the second respondent vide order dated 20.03.2002. Hence, the petitioner has preferred W.P. No. 8298 of
2003 challenging the orders passed by the respondents 1 and 2.
The petitioner and another filed W.P. No. 13287 of 1993 before this Court challenging the promotion given to the respondents 2 to 6 therein,
who are their juniors and for a consequential direction to the first respondent to promote them to the cadre of Superintendent. The same was
allowed by this Court. Pursuant thereto, during the punishment period, the petitioner was promoted as Section Officer by order dated 30.07.2001.
By an order dated 22.12.2005, impugned in W.P. No. 1952 of 2006, the petitioner was demoted as Assistant Section Officer and recovery of
excess salary and other benefits also was ordered on the ground that the petitioner would not be entitled to promotion during the punishment
period and five years thereafter.
Heard learned senior counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents.
Though several submissions have been made by learned senior counsel for petitioner as also learned counsel for respondents, this Court finds it
necessary not to go into the rival submissions and that it would suffice to inform as follows:
Finding much wrong in the conduct of enquiry, this Court expressed the view that the present would be a fit case to award heavy costs to the
petitioner. An opportunity was afforded to the respondents to afford redress to her. The response of the respondents has been to effect change of
counsel.
A perusal of the records reveals the following:
whether the
names of the
whether the witnesses stand
whether receipt whether the
Representation representation informed in the
Exs. Representation of Examined as of representation representation is
Date bears the seal of first
is acknowledged in format
the University representation
dated
25.07.2000
A1 11.08.2000 A.Sasikala PW1 Yes Yes Yes Yes
A2 11.08.2000 R.Janarthanasamy PW2 Yes No Yes Yes
A4 11.08.2000 K.Mohana PW3 No No Yes No
A5 11.08.2000 S.Ayyapan PW4 No No Yes Yes
A6 11.08.2000 P.Regupathy PW5 No No Yes Yes
A7 11.08.2000 T.Maragatham PW6 Yes No Yes Yes
A9 11.08.2000 P.Kangaraj PW7 Yes No Yes Yes
A11 25.07.2000 M.Chandrasekaran PW8 Yes No Yes Yes
A12 09.04.2001 M.Uma PW9 No No Yes Yes
A13 10.04.2001 B.Banumathi PW10 No No No Yes
A14 10.04.2001 A.Umavathy PW11 Yes No No Yes
A15 10.04.2001 V.R.Krishnasamy PW12 Yes Yes Yes Yes
A16 12.04.2001 Chitradevi PW13 No No Yes Yes
A17 Nil R.Padmini PW14 No No Yes Yes
A18 Nil S.Jothimani PW15 No No Yes Yes
A19 12.04.2001 S.Navamani PW16 No No Yes No
A20 10.04.2001 V.R.Manonmani PW17 Yes Yes Yes Yes
A21 10.04.2001 B.Suganthakumari PW18 No No Yes Yes
A22 12.04.2001 M.R.Jothimani PW19 No No Yes Yes
A24 10.04.2001 S.Mahalakshmi PW20 Yes Yes Yes Yes
A25 Nil V.Vedanidhi PW21 No No Yes Yes
12.04.2001 C.Sivashanmugam No No Yes Yes
We found that almost all the representations against the petitioner were in cyclostyle form and uniform in content. This position reflects pre-
determination of mind. The presence of neither acknowledgment nor affixture of University seal on several of the representations only renders them
more doubtful. Further, though the enquiry proceedings have commenced on 27.03.2001, several representations of subsequent dates viz.,
09.04.2001, 10.04.2001 and 12.04.2001, again in cyclostyle form and of uniform content, have been marked through witnesses. This offends the
principles of natural justice. The observations of lack of acknowledgment and absence of University seal also hold good.
Finding the orders under challenge in W.P. No. 8298 of 2003 a result of pre-determined enquiry in violation of rules of natural justice, W.P.
No. 8298 of 2003 shall stand allowed and the orders under challenge shall stand quashed. W.P. No. 1952 of 2006 would have to be allowed as a
mere consequence of allowing W.P. No. 8298 of 2003. Even otherwise, W.P. No. 1952 of 2006 would have to be allowed for the reason that
the petitioner would be entitled to the salary and other benefits attached to the office of Section Officer during the period she held such post. For
the aforesaid reasons, these writ petitions are allowed and the orders under challenge are set aside. The respondent University is directed to pay a
sum of Rs. 10,000/- as costs to the petitioner within two weeks of this date. 29.08.2013.