AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramanujam, J.—The Petitioner herein who is the Principal of Alagappa College, Karaikudi seeks the issue of a writ of certiorari by this
Court to quash an order, dated 1st August, 1983 of the College Committee of Alagappa College under which he has been placed under
suspension with immediate effect and has been directed to hand over charge forthwith to another Professor. The circumstances under which the
impugned order came to be passed by the College Committee may briefly be noted.
The Petitioner has been the Principal of the College for the past six years. The Secretary of the College Committee issued a notice on 9th June,
1983 convening a meeting of the College Committee on 17th June, 1983 for considering the question of taking disciplinary action against the
Petitioner for violation of the service agreement and also the code of conduct. This meeting has been convened after the matter has been brought
before the Board of Trustees and the Board of Trustees had directed the College Committee to consider the same. However, that meeting could
not be held on 17th June, 1983, in view of the Petitioner having filed Writ Petition No. 5010 of 1983 and obtained an injunction for bearing the
College Committee from proceeding with the consideration of the said subject and taking disciplinary action against him pursuant to the notice,
dated 9th June, 1983 pending disposal of the writ petition. Subsequently after the College Committee filed a counter-affidavit, this Court vacated
the injunction order holding that it is for the College Committee to decide whether the Petitioner has to be proceeded against by way of disciplinary
action, or not, that the writ petition filed by the Petitioner is premature and that the Petitioner cannot have any grievance if the meeting of the
College Committee is convened and that therefore, there was no justification of forbearing the College Committee from holding the meeting as
proposed. It was also pointed out by the learned Judge while dismissing the injunction petition filed by the Petitioner that it is some enough for the
Petitioner to agitate the matter if the College Committee purposes to take disciplinary action after framing the charges and after conducting due
enquiry. Thereafter the College Committee issued a notice, dated 23rd July, 1983 informing the members of the College Committee that a meeting
will, be held at 2 P.M. on 1st August, 1983 at the College premises and the following is the agent a for the meeting:
To consider the conduct of Mr. G. Selvaganapathy, Principal, Alagappa College in relation to the administration of College.
This meeting was attended by seven members out of eight constituting the College Committee including the Petitioner. In that meeting a note
prepared by the Secretary of the College Committee was placed and read out. The said note contained as many as 18 items of alleged misconduct
or irregularities said to have been committed by the Petitioner. Taking note of the charges contained in the Secretary''s note read out at the
meeting. five members of the Committee supported the disciplinary action proposed to be taken against the Petitioner and the other two members
including the Petitioner voted against. The result was there was a resolution by the majority at the meeting resolving to place the Petitioner under
suspension with immediate effect pending an enquiry into the allegation of gross is conduct alleged against him which have been referred to in the
Secretary''s note. By a communication dated 1st August, 1983 the Petitioner was also informed about the resolution and about the suspension
pending enquiry and also directing him to hand over charge forthwith to Professor V. Ramaswamy, Head of the Department of Geology. The
Petitioner was also asked to hand over to the said Professor Ramaswamy all the files and records in the Petitioner''s custody. En the said
communication the Petitioner was also informed that during the period of suspension he will be paid subsistence allowance as per the Tamil Nadu
Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976. Immediately the Petitioner has come to this Court for questioning the said impugned order, dated 1st
August, 1983 passed by the College Committee placing him under suspension pending enquiry into the various allegations referred to in the
Secretary''s note.
The case as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ petition is as follows: The Petitioner has been Principal of the College for the last
six years. After his joining the College as Principal many Post-graduate courses were started in the College, and the Post-graduate Department
(Tamil) was raised to a Centre of Advanced Research Centre leading to M.Phil. and Ph.D. Degrees, and the strength of the College was
phenomenally raised. It is stated that he is a strict disciplinarian and as he was enforcing strict discipline in the administration of the College, he had
to meet various challenges from the students as well as form the teachers and the management, that he was honest in the administration of the
College, that in the administration of the College misunderstandings have arisen between him and the other members of the College Committee as
well as the trustees of the Trust Board which runs the college and other educational institutions and that as a result of the said misunderstandings
that arose between him and the trustees of the Trust Board as well as the other members of the College Committee false allegations have been
levelled against him, that only with a view to put him out of the way he has been suspended pending enquiry without any notice to him and that in
any event none of the allegations made against him is so serious as to warrant an order of suspension pending enquiry being passed against him. It
is also the case of the Petitioner that the meeting in which the resolution has been passed suspending him pending enquiry has not been properly
and duly convened and therefore, the resolution passed in the meeting cannot be taken to be valid. According to the Petitioner a Member of the
College Committee who has been nominated by the Madurai Kamaraj University has not been served with notice of the meeting before 7 clear
days of the meeting and that therefore, the convening of the meeting is not in accordance with the statutory provisions.
Thus the two substantial contentions advanced by the Petitioner in the writ petition are. (1) That the meeting held on 1st August, 1983 is not
validity convened and therefore any resolution passed therein cannot be taken to be valid and (2) in any event the allegations made against the
Petitioner are not so serious as to warrant the exercise of the power of suspension pending enquiry and the relevant statutory provision
contemplate the exercise of the power to suspend a teacher pending enquiry only when allegations of gross misconduct are made against him.
The second Respondent has filed a counter-affidavit resisting the writ petition. The deponent of the counter-affidavit is the daughter of Dr.
Alagappa Chettiar who was the founder of the educational institution and in whose name the educational trust his been founded and she is the
Secretary of the educational trust as also the Secretary of the College Committee. In her counter-affidavit it has been stated as follows. She has
been a trustee of the Trust, Board from 1956 and Secretary of the Trust Board since 1968 that Dr. Alagappa Chettiar Educational Trust is the
Educational agency of Dr. Alagappa College, Karaikudi as defined in Section 2(4) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976.
She is also a Member of the College Committee under Rule 9 the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976. The Petitioner cannot
claim creak for the growth of the College, and the credit for the growth of the College to its present position goes to the efficient management and
administration of the educational agency and the College Committee. It was found by the Trust Board and the College Committee that the
Petitioner was guilty of very many lapses and as the Petitioner did not correct himself in spite of the mistake or lapses having been pointed out to
him and therefore, disciplinary action had necessarily to be taken against him for the purpose of maintaining the management and administration of
the College clean. It is only with that view originally a notice was issued on 23rd July, 1983 calling for a meeting on 1st August 1983 and on 1st
August 1983 the majority of the Members of the College Committee, in the presence of the Petitioner who also happened to be a Member of the
College Committee, passed a resolution authorising the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner in respect of certain allegations
made against him by the Secretary of the College Committee and placing the Petitioner under suspension pending enquiry. It cannot be disputed
that the College Committee has the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner and that they can also exercise the power of
suspension pending enquiry. Therefore the action of the management cannot be taken exception to.
In the face of the above pleadings we have to consider the question as to whether the resolution passed by the College Committee on 1st
August 1983 placing the Petitioner under suspension pending enquiry and proposing to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner is
valid in law.
The first contention urged by Mr. R. Gandhi learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the meeting convened on 1st August 1983 is invalid as it
has not been duly and properly convened. It is said that under Rule 10(3) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges. (Regulation) Rules, 1976 no
meeting of the Committee shall be conducted unless at least 7 clear days notice in writing has been given to the members of the committee and in
this case one Member of the Committee who is a nominee of the Madurai-Kamaraj University has not been served with such a clear 7 days notice
and therefore, the meeting should be held to be had and consequently the resolution passed in that meeting should also be held to be invalid. In
support of the said plea the learned Counsel refers to a communication, dated 27th July, 1983 sent by the Registrar of Madurai-Kamaraj
University to Thiru S. Selvaraj, Principal, Kamaraj College, Tuticorin wherein the University has directed Thiru S. Selvaraj to attend the meeting of
the College Committee convened on 1st August 1983, Taking the date of this communication as the basis, the learned Counsel would say that
Thiru Selvaraj has been given notice only on 27th July, 1983 of the meeting proposed to be convened on 1st August, 1983, and there being no
clear 7 days notice the meeting should be taken to have been convened without the issue of proper notice as provided in Rule 10(3) of the said
Rules. However, it is not possible to assume from the said communication dated 27th July, 1983 sent by the Registrar of the Madurai-Kamaraj
University to the Member nominated by it that the notice was issued by the Secretary of the College Committee only on 27th July,1983. I find that
Thiru S. Selvaraj, Principal Kamaraj College, Tuticorin who is a Member of the College Committee nominated by the Madurai-Kamaraj
University was served with a notice on 23rd July, 1983 for that letter dated 23rd July, 1983 addressed to all the Members of the College
Committee has been referred to in the communication, dated 29th July,1983 sent by the said University to the Secretary of the College Committee.
Therefore it. is not possible to say that Thiru S. Selvaraj, the Member nominated by the Madurai-Kamaraj University who is the Principal of the
Kamaraj College, Tuticorin was not duly served with notice before 7 clear days of the meeting. There was some doubt as to whether Thiru S.
Selvaraj can act as a nominated member even after the expiry of the period of nomination. Only when the University told him that his period has
been extended beyond 31st July, 1983 and therefore he can attend the meeting of the College Committee till a final decision is taken by the
University, he made up his mind to attend the meeting of the College Committee. Further, the notice convening the meeting on 1st August,1983 is
said to have been sent by certificate of posting to its Members including the nominated member Thiru S. Selvaraj. The postal seal is found in the
certificate of posting obtained from the postal department which shows that a cover addressed to Thiru S. Selvaraj, Principal, Kamaraj College
was posted on 23rd July, 1983. From all these materials it is clear that all the members of the College Committee were served with due notice
before 7 days of the meeting as contemplated by Rule 10(3) of the Rules. Therefore the validity of the meeting convened on 1st August, 1983
carrot successfully be questioned by the Petitioner. The resolution passed in that meeting carrot also be taken to be vitiated on that ground.
Coming to the next ground urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that even if the College Committee is taken to have validly convened
the meeting on 1st August 1983 the resolution passed therein suspending the Petitioner pending enquiry cannot legally be sustained, the learned
Counsel contends that the power to suspend a teacher u/s 19(3)(a) of the Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 can be exercised only when a
gross misconduct has been alleged and an enquiry to those gross misconduct is contemplated, and in this case all the allegations set out in the
Secretary''s note cannot be termed as gross misconduct. Section 19(3)(a) is as follows;
No teacher or other person employed in any private college shall be placed under suspension, except when an enquiry into the gross misconduct
within the meaning of the Code of conduct prescribed under Sub-section (1) of Section 18, of such teacher or other person is contemplated.
It is significant to note that the said provision is in a mandatory form. That says that no teacher or other person employed in any private college
shall be placed under suspension except when an enquiry into the gross misconduct, within the meaning of the code of Conduct prescribed under
Sub-section (1) of Section 18 of such teacher or other person is contemplated. A perusal of the Code of Conduct prescribed under Sub-section
(1) of Section 8 shows that gross misconduct has not been defined. Section 18(1) says that every teacher in any private college shall be governed
by such Code of Conduct as may be prescribed and if any teacher violates any provision of such Code of Conduct he shall be liable to such
disciplinary action may be prescribed, Annexure I of the Rules sets out the Code of conduct for the teachers and other persons employed in a
College. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner does not dispute the fact that the Petitioner though a Principal will come within the definition of
teacher and therefore the Code of Conduct set out in Annexure I is applicable to the Petitioner. In the Code of Conduct contained in Annexure I
there is no reference to gross misconduct at all nor is there any definition of gross misconduct therein. Section 9(3) which enables the College
Committee to suspend a teacher pending enquiry contemplates such a power being exercised only when an enquiry is contemplated in respect of
gross misconduct. This provision implies that it is not that every misconduct the suspension pending enquiry is thought of. As already stated Section
19(3)(a) is in a mandatory form and no teacher shall be placed under suspension except when an enquiry into gross misconduct against him is
Contemplated. Therefore unless the management in this case shows that the charges alleged against the Petitioner relate to gross misconduct the
power to suspend pending enquiry contained in Section 19(3)(a) cannot be invoked. Sub-Section 3(a) of Section 19 uses the expression gross
misconduct within the meaning of the Code of Conduct prescribed under Sub-section (1) of Section 18. As already stated the Code of Conduct
prescribed u/s 18(1) which is contained in Schedule I of the Rules has not defined gross misconduct or does not it refer to gross misconduct. So
long as the Code of Conduct does not say as to what misconduct is to be taken as gross misconduct it may not be possible to invoke the power
u/s 19(3)(a). Apart from the said lacuna in the rules it is seen that the allegations made against the Petitioner and which have been set out in the
Secretary''s notice which are placed before the meeting convened on 1st August, 1983 are not that serious as to say that the Petitioner is guilty of
gross misconduct for which the power of suspension pending enquiry contained in Section 19(3)(a) could be invoked. Though very many
allegations have been made none of the allegations specifically refers to any misappropriation either permanent or temporary or any other conduct
showing any corrupt motive. The allegations generally relate to the Petitioner disobeying certain directions issued by the Secretary of the College
Committee or non-submission of the accounts or audited statements, etc. These allegations cannot be said to constitute serious misconduct calling
for the immediate exercise of the power of suspension pending enquiry When this was pointed out to the learned Counsel for the Management he
submitted that the order of suspension pending enquiry was passed in view of the peculiar situation where the Petitioner is Principal of the College
and also a Member of the College Committee and the College Committee as the disciplinary authority cannot take proceedings against him unless
the Petitioner ceases to be a Member of the College Committee. The submission is that so long as the Petitioner continues to be a Member of the
College Committee which is the disciplinary authority in this case an enquiry cannot properly be conducted and it is with a view to see that the
disciplinary proceedings are effectively conducted by the College Committee an order of suspension pending enquiry against the Petitioner was
passed so as to see that he does not act as a Member of the College Committee while the enquiry against him is pending before the Committee. It
is no doubt true that by the virtue of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 the Petitioner being a Principal is a Member of this
College Committee and under the provisions of the said Act, the College Committee is the, disciplinary authority to take disciplinary action against
all the teachers including the Principal, It is also true that while the Petitioner is a Member of the College Committee it will be quite embarrassing if
not impossible for the College Committee to take disciplinary proceedings against him. But this handicap or difficulty cannot be availed of by the
management to suspend the Petitioner pending enquiry for the power to suspend a teacher pending enquiry contained in Section 19(3) cannot be
exercised for a different purpose not contemplated by the said section. As already stated that provision contemplates the passing of a suspension
order by the College Committee pen. ding enquiry only in cases where the charges contemplated related to grave misconduct. Therefore that part
of the resolution passed by the College Committee on 1st August, 1983 cannot be taken to be valid. However the resolution so far as it initiates
disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner has to be taken to be valid, ft is not in dispute that the College Committee is the disciplinary authority
to initiate disciplinary proceedings against any teacher including the Principal. Therefore the College Committee which has been duly constituted
under the Act can initiate disciplinary proceedings if it is found that the Petitioner is guilty of certain lapses or laches. As a matter of fact in the
Secretary''s note which was the basis for passing the resolution dated 1st August, 1983 various allegations have been made and if the College
Committee thought that an enquiry is needed with reference to those allegations they are entitled to initiate a disciplinary enquiry in relation to those
allegations against the Petitioner. Therefore the Petitioner cannot challenge the power of the College Committee to initiate disciplinary proceedings
against him and the resolution passed by the College Committee on 1st August 1983 in so far as it relates to the initiation, of disciplinary
proceedings against the Petitioner cannot be successfully be challenged by the Petitioner.
However there is this difficulty. The Petitioner as a Principal is ex-officio Member of the College Committee and if the College Committee is to
initiate disciplinary proceedings against one of its Members, it will lead to a situation where the Petitioner will be a Judge in his own cause. The
Petitioner as a Member of the College Committee will be enquiring into the allegations of misconduct against himself. Such a situation has to be
avoided in the interest of justice and fair play, and to avoid violation of the principles of natural justice. One of the basic principles of natural justice
is that no one can be a Judge in his own cause. Here the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the College Committee is against the Petitioner and if
the Petitioner were to act as a Member of the College Committee, he will be conducting an enquiry along With the other Members of the
Committee against himself. For avoiding such a situation, a direction has to be issued that the Petitioner cannot act as a Member of the College
Committee in the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings or whenever the question of disciplinary proceedings are deliberated upon in the College
Committee. It is well-established that where, as in this case, a Member of the College Committee is interested in any matter that is coming before
that Committee, he is to refrain from acting as a Member of the Committee while the matter in which he is interested comes before the Committee.
Therefore it was suggested that the Petitioner should not act as a Member of the Committee when it deals with the matters relating to the
disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Petitioner. Mr. R. Gandhi learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has no objection for such a
direction being given. From what has been stated, the College Committee is at liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings as resolved on 1st August,
1983 and the Petitioner is directed not to take part as a Member of the Committee in any proceedings before the Committee in which he may have
personal interest.
The learned Counsel for the Management then contends that the Petitioner is in custody of the various records of the College and there will be
difficulty in the matter of the conduct of the enquiry in the absence of these records. The apprehension of the management can be met by giving a
direction to the Petitioner to produce all the records that are necessary for the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry against him as and when called
upon by the Committee of management to produce the same. It is expected that the Petitioner in his own interest will fully co-operate in the
conduct of the disciplinary enquiry so that he can prove that the allegations made against him are not at all sustainable and that he is not
blameworthy. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has no objection for the production of such of those documents and records as are
required by the College Committee.
In the light of the above observations, this writ petition is allowed in part and the resolution, dated 1st August, 1983 so far as it relates to the
suspension pending enquiry as against the Petitioner stands quashed. In other respects the resolution is held to be valid. There will, however, be no
order as to costs.