Madras High Court
Dr.A.Panneerselvam vs The Vice Chancellor on 2 March, 2021
W.P.No.4195 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.03.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P.No.4195 of 2020 and
W.M.P.Nos.4956 & 18757 of 2020
Dr.A.Panneerselvam ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Vice Chancellor,
Thiruvalluvar University,
Serkkadu,
Vellore - 632 115.
2.The Registrar,
Thiruvalluvar University,
Serkkadu,
Vellore - 632 115. ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent dated
19.01.2020 bearing Charge Memorandum No.Letter/Memo No.TVU/R/2020/188
issued as contrary to Sec.14(2)(a) of Thiruvalluvar University Act, 2002 as well
as citing the Inquiry Officer as one of the witnesses by the second
respondent/Inquiry Officer and to quash the same with consequential direction
to the first respondent to act in respect of the enquiry proceedings after
production of all necessary material documents - pursuant to the letter dated
12.12.2014 of the petitioner sought under the Right to Information Act, 2002,
which are under the custody of the second respondent in accordance with Law,
besides providing an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.Haja Nazirudeen, Sr. Counsel
For Mr.P.Haribabu
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.4195 of 2020
For Respondents : Mr.M.C.Swamy
*****
ORDER
The petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition,
challenging the charge memo dated 19.01.2020 bearing No.Letter/Memo
No.TVU/R/2020/188 on the ground that it is contrary to Sec.14(2)(a) of
Thiruvalluvar University Act, 2002 as well as by citing the deposition of the
Inquiry Officer as one of the witnesses during enquiry and consequently for a
direction to the first respondent to proceed further only after production of all
necessary material documents - pursuant to the letter dated 12.12.2014 of the
petitioner made under the Right to Information Act, 2002, which are under the
custody of the second respondent, in accordance with Law, besides providing an
opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner joined the services as an Associate Professor (Zoology)
in the department of Zoology on 09.11.2010. The petitioner has submitted that
the present charge memo has been issued on 19.01.2020. Earlier, on
28.11.2014, a show cause memo was issued with regard to fake experience
certificate alleged to have been given by the petitioner for which a detailed
explanation has been given and thereafter no further proceedings took place.
Suddenly on 19.01.2020, the petitioner received a communication that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.4195 of 2020
Registrar In-charge, Thiruvalluvar University has proposed to hold an enquiry
against the charges framed against the petitioner. According to the petitioner,
the charge memorandum dated 19.01.2020 itself is illegal on three counts:
(i) The entire proceedings are malafide to victimize the petitioner.
(ii) There is a delay in issuing the charge memo, since, after a
decade of the incident, a charge memo has been issued and;
(iii) The Registrar, who has given a charge memo has no power to
issue it. That apart he has been cited as a witness and
hence, the entire charges itself has got to be interfered with.
3. According to the petitioner in terms of Section 14(2)(a) of
Thiruvalluvar University Act, 2002, the Registrar has no power to hold an
enquiry against a Teaching Staff, which fact is admitted in Paragraph 6 of the
counter affidavit filed by the second respondent and hence, no further
proceedings should be held.
4. The respondents have filed a vacate stay petition in W.M.P.No.18757
of 2020 against the interim order of stay granted by this Court on 20.02.2020 in
the above writ petition. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the
second respondent. The sum and substance of the counter is that the petitioner
had produced a fake experience certificate from three institutions, which are
not genuine. It has been covered up and manipulated by the petitioner, which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.4195 of 2020
came to light on verification. He further submitted that the impugned order
under challenge is only a charge memo and not an enquiry notice and one
Mr.Krishnan has been appointed as an Enquiry Officer. The learned counsel
appearing for the respondents also drew the attention of this Court to the
proceedings dated 23.09.2019, wherein, it has been decided by the Registrar
(In-charge), Thiruvalluvar University to frame charges against the petitioner as
directed by the Syndicate of the Thiruvallurvar University. It was only the
Syndicate's decision that has been communicated to the petitioner and not
otherwise. The Syndicate in its 85th meeting held on 09.08.2019 had resolved to
take disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for producing fake
experience certificate at the time of applying for the post of Associate
Professor, Zoology on 24.05.2010. He would further submit that there is no
malafide intention at all and that the petitioner has been informed about the
fake experience certificate and that he could have very well participated in the
enquiry and disputed the records summoned by the three Universities / Colleges
with regard to the experience certificate alleged to have been produced by
him. He would further submit that there is no delay in initiating the proceedings
and the certificates are with the respondents, but on enquiry, it came to light
that they are fake, hence, departmental action has been initiated. A fake
certificate will not become genuine certificate after a decade. Hence, the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.4195 of 2020
5. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in
terms of the decision of the Apex Court and this Court, if there is a delay and
enquiry proceedings are protracted, which may cause distress to the
delinquent, it has got to be presumed to give a room for bias / malafide misuse
of power. If the delay is unexplained and is unexplained, the Court may well
interfere and quash the charges in the light of the judgment of this Court in the
case of C.P.Harish vs. The Central Warehousing, reported in 2000 (4) CTC
6. Mr.M.C.Swamy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, apart
from reiterating the factual aspects stated supra, relied upon the judgment of
the Supreme Court in State of Odisha and another vs. Bibhisan Kanhar, [Civil
Appeal No.9124 of 2017] decided on 17.07.2017, wherein it has been held as
follows:
"It was held by Denning, L.J. in Lazarus Estates, Ltd. v.
Beasley (1956) 1 All E.R.341, 345 that no Court will allow a person
to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud.[...] Fraud
unravels everything. The Court is careful not to find fraud unless
it is distinctly pleaded and proved; but once it is proved it
vitiates judgments, contracts and all transactions whatsoever."
He would submit that when a fake certificate was produced, it has to be
cancelled by the State Level Scrutiny Committee.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.4195 of 2020
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
8. The pleadings of both parties and judgments referred to supra would
make it very clear that there are certificates produced by the petitioner, which
according to the petitioner is genuine and that fact has been disputed by the
respondents as those certificates are fake. Whether genuine or fake would be
established during the domestic enquiry. This Court cannot conduct a roving
enquiry and render a finding. The Court will have to analyse as to whether
there is a delay and whether there is a contradiction of provisions of the
Thiruvalluvar University Act, 2002 with regard to initiation of disciplinary
proceedings as referred / pleaded by the petitioner. Though the charge memo
dated 19.01.2020 has used a word “The undersigned proposes to hold an
inquiry”, which has been given to the petitioner in a standard format and the
language used therein may not be good enough to make it as a charge sheet,
but by reading one sentence it cannot be concluded that it is not a charge
sheet. A reading of Appendices and Annexures would make it clear that it is
only a charge sheet, which fact has been admitted by the petitioner. The
charge sheet has been issued by the Registrar-Incharge, Thiruvalluvar University
may not be correct. The decision of the Syndicate of the Thiruvalluvar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.4195 of 2020
University has been communicated to the petitioner. Hence, no power under
Section 14(2) of the Thiruvalluvar University Act has been invoked in this case.
The power is vested with the Syndicate and the same has been clearly set out
in Section (24)(a), (27) and (28) of the Act, which reads as under:
“Sec.24. (a) The Syndicate shall have the following powers,
namely:-
“(27)(a) to appoint the University Lecturers, University
Readers, University Professors and the teachers of the University,
fix their emoluments, if any, define their duties and the
conditions of their services and provide for filling up of temporary
vacancies.
(b) to make ordinances specifying the mode of appointment
of administrative and other similar posts and fix their
employments, if any, define their duties and the conditions of
their services and provide for filling up of temporary vacancies.
(28) to suspend and dismiss the University Lecturers,
University Readers, University Professors and the teachers and
other employees of the University.”
9. Based on the 85th Syndicate meeting held on 09.08.2019, a
departmental action has been initiated against the petitioner for which a
charge memo dated 19.01.2020 has been issued. The Syndicate alone has got
power to initiate action against a Professor, which has been done in this case,
communicated by the Registrar, who may be a witness, who may or may not go
into facts at later point of time. It does not meant that the Registrar In-charge
cannot communicate the Syndicate decision to the petitioner, even if he is
going to be a witness in this case. Insofar as the delay is concerned as narrated
supra in view of the judgment of Apex Court and even going by the reference
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.4195 of 2020
made by the petitioner, in C.P.Harish vs. The Central War Housing reported
in 2000 (4) CTC 517, it has been held that in a given case, the nature of the
offence and other circumstances may be such that quashing of the proceedings
may not be in the interest of justice. In such a case, it has been observed, it is
open to the Court to make such other appropriate order as it finds just and
equitable in the circumstance of the case. In A.R.Antulay v.R.S.Nayak
reported in 1988 AIR 1531, a Constitution Bench of Apex Court has granted the
relief of terminal benefits, as there was a huge delay. In this case, as the
charges are serious in nature, the Petitioner / Professor, who has got to impart
education and has no qualification, if involved in production of fake certificate,
cannot be shown any leniency on the ground of delay so as to interfere with the
charge memo.
10. In this country, teachers are regarded as Guru and Gods /
Goddess and this Court has also described the importance of the teacher
in the society by citing a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Avinash Nagra Vs. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and others,
reported in 1997(2) SCC 534, wherein it has been held as under:
“Before answering the question whether the order
terminating the services of the appellant in terms of his
appointment letter is in violation of the Rules or the
principles of natural justice, it is necessary to consider the
need for the education and the place of the teacher in that
behalf. Article 45 of the constitution enjoins the State to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.4195 of 2020
endeavour to provide free and compulsory education to all
children, till they complete the age of 14 years. The
Supreme Court has held that right to education is a
fundamental right and the State is required to organise
education through its agencies or private institutions in
accordance with the law and the regulations or the scheme.
The State has taken care of service conditions of the teacher
and he owes dual fundamental duties to himself and to the
society. As a member of the noble teaching profession and a
citizen of India he should always be willing, self disciplined,
dedicated with integrity to remain ever a learner of
knowledge, intelligently to articulate and communicate the
imbibe in his students, as social duty, to impart education, to
bring them up with discipline, inculcate to abjure violence
and to develop scientific temper with a spirit of enquiry and
reform constantly to rise to higher levels in any walk of life
nurturing constitutional ideals enshrined in Article 51 A so as
to make the students responsible citizens of the country. The
quality, competence and character of the teacher are,
therefore, most significant to mould the institutions and to
sustain them in their later years of life as a responsible
citizen in different responsibilities.”
10.Mahatma Gandhi, the Father of the Nation has
stated that “a teacher cannot be without character. If he
lacks it, he will be like salt without its savour. A teacher
must touch the hearts of his students. Boys imbibe more
from the teacher's own life than they do from books. If
teachers impart all the knowledge in the world to their
students but do not inculcate truth and purity amongst them,
they will have betrayed them. ...
.....Dr.S.Radhakrishnan has stated that “we in our
country look upon teacher as gurus or, as acharyas. An
Acharya is one whose aachar or conduct is exemplary. He
must be an example of Sadachar or good conduct. He must
inspire the pupils who are entrusted to his care with love of
virtue and goodness. ....”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.4195 of 2020
11.It is in this backdrop, therefore, that the Indian
society has elevated the teacher as “Guru Brahma, Gurur
Vishnu, Guru Devo Maheswaraha”. As Brahma, the teacher
creates knowledge, learning, wisdom and also creates out of
his students, men and women, equipped with ability and
knowledge, discipline and intellectualism to enable them to
face the challenges of their lives. As Vishnu, the teacher is
preserver of learning. As Maheswara, he destroys ignorance.
....."
11. Hence, I find there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is
dismissed. It is open to the respondents to proceed with the enquiry on day to-
day basis without adjourning the matter beyond seven working days at any point
of time. This Court makes it very clear that any observation made in this order
touching upon the merits of the case will not affect the rights of either of the
parties and de hors any observation on merits by this Court. The decision shall
be taken by the Appropriate Authority in an independent manner
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
rsi/ar
and the same shall be communicated to the petitioner. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
02.03.2021
Index : Yes/no
Speaking order : Yes/No
rsi/ar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.4195 of 2020
To:
1.The Vice Chancellor,
Thiruvalluvar University,
Serkkadu,
Vellore - 632 115.
2.The Registrar,
Thiruvalluvar University,
Serkkadu,
Vellore - 632 115.
W.P.No.4195 of 2020 and
W.M.P.Nos.4956 & 18757 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
