Secretary and Correspondent, Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar College vs Joint Director of Collegiate Education and Another

Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the Joint Director of Collegiate

Education, to consider and pass orders on the petitioner''s proposal for dismissal of second respondent from service on the proved misconduct.

The College Committee of Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar College, Usilampatti, Madurai District placed the second respondent under

suspension with effect from 18.11.2011, in view of the contemplated enquiry against him for the serious misconduct.

The second respondent, thereafter, was issued a charge memo dated 18.11.2011 and finding the explanation given by him to be not

satisfactory, the Management appointed Dr. S. Jeyabalan, retired Principal of Arulmighu Palaniandavar College of Arts and Culture, Palani as an

Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry. The enquiry officer, after giving opportunity to the second respondent to participate in enquiry, held the second

respondent guilty of all the six charges.

The Management of the College, being appointing authority, after issuing a show cause notice to the second respondent along with the enquiry

report and considering the explanation, decided to impose punishment of dismissal from service.

As per the provisions of the statute, the proposal for dismissing of an employee from service was forwarded to the first respondent, who under

the statute, is required to either approve the proposal or reject it.

Instead of calling for the departmental proceedings file and giving opportunity to the second respondent to submit his defence, before deciding to

accept or reject the proposal, the first respondent adopted a novel method of directing the petitioner from time to time to send additional

documents.

The first respondent, under the law, was only required to call for the departmental proceedings file and give opportunity to the second

respondent before taking a decision as to whether the enquiry against the second respondent was conducted in accordance with law, and

thereafter, punishment was proportionate to the proved charges, so as to either grant of approval or reject it. The first respondent has not taken

any decision by following the procedure.

It is surprising that though proposal for dismissal of an employee on the serious charges was submitted to the first respondent on 27.3.2012,

even after lapse of six months, proceedings to give personal hearing of the respective parties has not been fixed.

The action of the first respondent, therefore, amounts to non performance of statutory obligation, thereby, defeating the right of the Management

to dismiss an employee, on charges of serious misconduct.

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and a writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the first respondent to conclude the

proceedings for grant of approval of dismissal of the second respondent from service in accordance with law, within two months of the receipt of a

certified copy of this order.

It is made clear that it shall be open to the first respondent either to approve or to disapprove the proposal submitted by the petitioner by

giving detailed reasons for arriving at such decision. No costs.