LAWS(MAD)-2010-1-604

P JEYACHANDRAN Vs. DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION

Decided On January 06, 2010
P. JEYACHANDRAN Appellant
V/S
DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, CHENNAI-25 Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal, dated 10.8.2000, passed by the Correspondent of Annai Velankanni Polytechnic, second respondent, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Consequently, he has prayed for a direction to the respondents to reinstate him as Librarian in the second respondent-Institution, with full backwages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.

(2.) Facts leading to the writ petition are as follows: The second respondent-Polytechnic has been established by Annai Velankanni Educational and Social Society for imparting education by conducting Diploma courses. By G.O. Ms. No. 946, Education Department, dated 9.7.1996, the Government have granted permission to establish the second respondent-Polytechnic. Initially, on 7.10.1997, the petitioner was appointed as Lab Attender in the second respondent-Polytechnic. He is a Science Graduate with B.Ed., qualification and subsequently, he has passed M.A. (Tamil) and Post Graduate Diploma in Journalism and Certificate Course of Library and Information Science. Lateron, he was appointed as Librarian. During 1998, a dispute arose between the Members of the Educational Society, which resulted in a group of members, filing a suit against one Mr. A.Peter, who claimed to be the Correspondent of the second respondent-Polytechnic and for a declaration to declare that he is not entitled to hold the Office of Presidentship of the Society or in the alternative to remove him from the Office. The matter came on appeal before this Court in A.S. No. 273 of 1994. During the pendency of the appeal, one Panduranga Chettiar, claiming himself to be the receiver of the second respondent-Polytechnic committed several misdeeds and the petitioner was one of the victims. The said Panduranga Chettiar, by order, dated 21.9.1998, without issuing notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, terminated him from service. The petitioner as well as other teaching and non-teaching staff have objected to the illegal order. Therefore, it was unconditionally withdrawn. Consequently, a charge memo, dated 10.6.1999, was issued to the petitioner, alleging certain acts of misconduct. Though an explanation was submitted, without considering the same in proper perspective, one Mr. S. Nagarajan, advocate was appointed as an enquiry officer. On receipt of the enquiry notice, dated 14.6.1999, informing the petitioner that the enquiry proceedings would be commenced on 26.6.1999 at 3.00 p.m., the petitioner, by his letter, dated 23.6.1999, requested permission to engage an advocate to assist him in the enquiry proceedings. A reminder, dated 6.7.1999 was also sent. However, his request was refused on 10.7.1999. Thereafter, the petitioner, by letter, dated 17.7.1999, requested for copies of documents and reiterated his earlier request for engaging an advocate. Though the representation, dated 17.7.1999, was received by the enquiry officer on 20.7.1999, there was no further communication. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to send a legal notice, dated 13.1.2000. But, there was no response. The second respondent-Polytechnic, vide proceedings, dated 10.8.2000, informed the petitioner that he has been removed from service, in view of the fact that he had not come for compromise and therefore, the enquiry officer had proceeded with ex parte and accordingly, given a report. Though the petitioner submitted an appeal, the Director of Technical Education, Chennai, first respondent, the said authority, by his letter, dated 11.2.2000, informed the petitioner that since the second respondent-Polytechnic is a self-financing polytechnic, they have no control over the teaching and non-teaching staff. Left with no other option, the petitioner has approached this Court for the relief as stated supra.

(3.) Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that when the Correspondent has relied on a report, said to have been submitted by the enquiry officer, on 2.6.2000, copy of the same ought to have been furnished to the writ petitioner, so as to enable him to submit his further representation on the findings. She further submitted that though the petitioner was alleged to have committed certain acts of misconduct, there is absolutely no oral and documentary evidence let in before the enquiry and that the enquiry officer has arbitrarily proceeded on the basis that since some of the persons had already come forward to compromise and when the petitioner had failed to appear, there was no need to wait for him and on that score, drawn up an ex parte enquiry report. She further submitted that the approach of the enquiry officer is unknown to service jurisprudence and that there is total non-application of mind by the enquiry officer in arriving at the guilt of the petitioner, which has been blindly accepted by the second respondent-Polytechnic.