Rajesh Kumar K., Lecturer vs M.G. University and Vice Chancellor, M.G. University

K.T. Sankaran, J.—The petitioner is a Lecturer in the Department of Social Sciences in M.G. University, Kottayam. A complaint was raised against him by a student. The Syndicate of the University ordered an enquiry to be made. Two persons were nominated for that purpose. It would appear that a report was filed. Based on the report, the petitioner was placed under suspension as per Ext.P5 order dated 28.7.2010, pending disciplinary enquiry. Ext.P10 memo of charges was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P11 reply to the memo of charges. The disciplinary enquiry is not over.

A few days before the petitioner was placed under suspension, Teacher Fellowship was granted to the petitioner by the University Grants Commission as per the communication dated 20.7.2010 (Ext.P1). As per Ext.P1, the petitioner has to complete the Fellowship within the stipulated time. The petitioner submitted Exts.P8 and P9 representations to the Vice Chancellor and Registrar of the University respectively to permit the petitioner to join the Teacher Fellowship Programme.

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the order of suspension and the memo of charges. He has also prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to join the Fellowship Programme. The petitioner has also prayed, in relief No. (vi) in the Writ Petition, to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to take a decision on Exts.P6, P8 and P9 representations.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though several reliefs are claimed in the Writ Petition, for the time being, the petitioner would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the Vice Chancellor of the University to consider and dispose of Ext.P8 representation submitted by the petitioner. It is also submitted that the contentions raised by the petitioner in the Writ Petition may be left open, to be considered in the appropriate proceedings. The request made by the petitioner is just and reasonable.

After having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel for the respondents, I dispose of the Writ Petition as follows:

1) The second respondent, Vice Chancellor, shall consider Ext.P8 representation dated 2.8.2010 submitted by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

2) All the contentions raised by the petitioner in the Writ Petition are left open.

3) The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and certified copy of the judgment before the second respondent. The petitioner would also be free to produce such other relevant materials before the second respondent.