Madras High Court
Dr. S.Kayarkanni vs The Commissioner on 24 November, 2021
W.P(MD) No.351 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S. SRIMATHY
W.P(MD) No. 351 of 2015 and
M.P(MD).No.1 of 2015
Dr. S.Kayarkanni :Petitioner
.vs.
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment,
(Administration Department),
(President of College Committee),
Sri Parasakthi College for Women Courtallam,
O/o. Commissioner of HR and CE,
Chennai – 34.
2.The Secretary,
Sri Parasakthi College for Women,
Courtallam,
Tirunelveli District.
3. The Principal,
Sri Parasakthi College for Women,
Courtallam,
Tirunelveli District. : Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of to
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.351 of 2015
issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned
order in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.A3/35/2012 dated 08.12.2014 on the file of the
2nd respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner :Mr. T. Lajapathi Roy
For R1 : Mr.J.K. Jeyaseelan
Government Advocate (Civil Side)
For R2 and R3 Mr.V.R. Shanmuganathan
ORDER
---------------
The Writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned order
of punishment passed by the second respondent in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.
No.A3/35/2012 dated 08.12.2014 .
2. The petitioner while was working as an Associate Professor
in the Economics Department in Sri Parasakthi College for Women,
Courtallam, Thirunelveli from 29.09.1987, a charge memo dated
05.03.2012 was issued under Sections 18 and 19 of the Tamil Nadu Private
Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.351 of 2015
3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was granted
permission to take 42 girl students from Economics Major to Coimbatore
and its surroundings as a part of educational tour from 28.12.2011 to
29.12.2011. Since the petitioner acted beyond the permission, a charge
memo was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner took the girl students to
Ooty on 29.12.2011 thereby violated the permission. The other charges are
that the petitioner allowed the students to handle the money, the petitioner
allowed two boys to accompany the tour etc. After receiving the charge
memo the petitioner sought certain documents vide letter dated
24.01.2012. In the meanwhile the petitioner challenged the charge memo
in W.P.(MD).No. 3030 / 2012 on the ground that the college committee
was not convened for issuing the charge memo which is against the
Section 15 of Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act.
4. Thereafter, the college convened the College Committee on
17.03.2012 and discussed about the suspension and not for charge memo.
Again the Writ Petitioner filed another W.P(MD).No.3397 of 2012
challenging the suspension order and interim stay was granted. Later on,
the respondent had filed a memo stating that the impugned charge memo,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.351 of 2015
suspension orders were withdrawn with liberty to proceed in accordance
with law and recording the same both the Writ Petitions were disposed of
on 10.05.2012.
5. Again, a fresh charge memo was issued on 07.06.2012 and
enquiry was conducted and final order of punishment of stoppage of
increment for two years was passed. The Writ Petitioner has challenged
this punishment order on various grounds.
6. The 3rd respondent has filed a detailed counter. The
respondents have stated that the petitioner has participated in the enquiry
proceedings, has submitted explanation and admitted all the allegations.
The Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the charges 1,2,4 and 6
are proved; charges 3,5,7 are not proved. The respondents have stated,
without permission the petitioner has taken the girl students to Ooty and
the said charge has been admitted. The petitioner has allowed two boys to
accompany the tour and the same is grave in nature. The interest of the
students and the dignity of college is paramount for any college. The
parents of the students have allowed their daughters only on the belief that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.351 of 2015
the college would take care of the girl students. Therefore, taking the male
persons who are strangers to the college amongst girl students is mis-
conduct. The Enquiry Officer has submitted his report dated 13.05.2015.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials available on record.
8. The charges levelled against the petitioner is culled out as
under:
Fw;wr;rhl;Lfs;
“ 1.Fw;whyk; = guhrf;jp kfsph; fy;Y}hpapy; 3k; Mz;L
nghUshjhuj; Jiwapy; gapYk; 42 khztpaiu Nkw;gb
Jiwapy; ,izg;Nguhrphpauhfg; gzpGhpAk; Kidth; jpUkjp. r.
faw;fz;zp vd;gth; jiyikapy; 27.12.2011 md;W ,uT Kjy;
30.12.2011 mjpfhiy tiu Nfhak;Gj;J}Uf;F Rw;Wyh mioj;Jr;
nrd;Wtu. mDkjp ngw;W> Cl;bf;Fr; nrd;wJ.
2. Cl;bapy; epyr;rhpT ,Ug;gjhy;> Cl;bf;Fr; nry;y Ntz;lhk; vd
nghUshjhuj;Jiwj; jiyth; $wpaijAk; nghUl;gLj;jhky;> khztpfis
Cl;bf;F mioj;Jr; nrd;wJ.
3.28.12.2011 md;W ,uT (Gjd; fpoik) Cl;b fhl;Nl[py;
jq;Ftjw;F 27.12.2011 md;W Rw;Wyh nry;tjw;F Kd;Ng mjhtJ
26.12.2011 md;Nw Kd;Ndw;ghL nra;jJ.
4. fy;Y}hp tpjpfisAk;> fl;Lg;ghLfisAk; kPwp Rw;Wyh
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.351 of 2015
nry;Yk; NghJ> fy;Y}hpapy; gapyhj Mz;fis (fy;Y}hp khztpfspd;
rNfhjuh;fs;) fy;Y}hpapy; gapYk; khztpfSld; Rw;WyhTf;F mioj;Jr;
nrd;wJ.
5. Rw;WyhTf;F jug;gl;l gzj;ij xU khztpaplk; xg;gilj;jJ.
6. Nkw;gb fy;Y}hp Kjy;thpd; 06.01.2012 ehspl;l
fbjj;jpw;Fg; gjpy; mspf;fhky; 15 jpdq;fSf;F NkyhfpAk; Kidth;
jpUkjp. r. mq;faw;fz;zp ,izg;Nguhrphpau; tpsf;fk; rkh;g;gpf;fhky;
,Ue;jikahy;> kPz;Lk; fy;Y}hp Kjy;tuhy; 23.01.2012 md;W xU
epidT+l;Lf; fbjk; khiy 3.00 kzpf;Fs; gjpy; toq;FkhW Nfhug;gl;lJ.
md;dhh; Nkw;gb FiwghLfSf;F tpsf;fk; nfhLg;gjw;F mYtyf
Mtzq;fspd; efy;fis jUkhWk;> fhy mtfhrk; toq;Fk;gbAk; jdJ
24.01.2012 ehspl;l fbjj;jpy; $wpAs;s epiyapy;> jhd; nra;jJ jtW
vd;W mwpe;Jk;> mYtyf Mtzq;fspd; efy;fis ngw;W mjid ghprPyid
nra;j gpd;G jhd; tpsf;fk; rkh;g;gpf;f ,aYk; vd njhptpj;jpUg;gJ
mth; nra;j jtiw kiwf;f Kay;tJ.”
9. The contention of the Writ Petitioner is that enquiry report
was not furnished to her. But the respondents have denied the allegation as
false and has stated that the second respondent furnished the enquiry report
by proceeding, dated 26.08.2014 and thereafter, an explanation was sought
for from the petitioner on 11.09.2014 and also to appear before the college
committee on 15.09.2014. Therefore, the respondents have sternly
submitted all the allegations stated in the Writ Petitions are false and
submitted that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is correct.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.351 of 2015
10. The petitioner submitted that the enquiry report summary
alone was produced and this issue was agitated before this Court and two
interim orders were passed directing the respondents to produce the
enquiry report, but the respondents have not produced the same. The
petitioner has relied on Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in ECIL Vs. B.
Karunakar case reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 wherein it was held that,
“It is now settled law that the proceedings must be just,
fair and reasonable and negation thereof offend Articles
14 and 21. It is well settled law that principle of natural
justice are integral part of Article 14. No decision
prejudicial to a party should be taken without affording
an opportunity or supplying the material which is the
basis for the decision. The enquiry report constitutes
fresh material which has great persuasive force or effect
on the mind of the disciplinary authority. The supply of
the report along with the final order is like a post
mortem certificate with purifying odour. The failure to
supply copy thereof to the delinquent would be unfair
procedure offending not only Articles 14, 21 and 311 (2)
of the Constitution, but also principles of Natural
Justice.”
The respondents have not produced the enquiry report, but
claims the summary of the report is the enquiry report. But on perusal of
the enquiry report, only the summary of the contents of the report is given.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.351 of 2015
Therefore this Court holds that the same is violative of natural justice.
11. The petitioner has accepted that the girl students were
taken to Ooty, but stated that the visit to Ooty is also for education tour
only and not for side seeing. The girl students were taken to Thottapatta
Tea Factory which is evident from the certificate dated 29.12.2011 issued
by the said factory. In the seen that the permission was granted to visit
“Coimbatore and its surroundings as a part of educational tour”. Whenever
people visits Coimbatore, Ooty may be part of the visit, since the
permission is for “surroundings”, this Court holds the charge is not grave.
If the petitioner had taken to far away place like Kanyakumari or Chennai
then the same would be grave. Therefore this Court holds that the
reduction of punishment shall be considered.
12. The allegation of taking two boys along with the students
is concerned, the petitioner had submitted that when the bus started two
girl students namely Selvi. M. Shanthini and Selvi. K. Meenakshi have
stated that their brothers are coming to support the driver. The reason may
be right but taking boys along with girl students may lead to unnecessary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.351 of 2015
trouble / problem. As far as this allegation is concerned the petitioner
deserves punishment.
13. The petitioner has allowed a student to handle the cash
and the petitioner has submitted that the student would develop the
leadership quality and therefore she allowed the student to handle the cash.
As far as this allegation is concerned the enquiry officer has held the
charge not proved. This would indicate that the teacher is interested in
developing the students on right path. Taking this quality of the teacher in
consideration this Court is of the view that the punishment shall be
reduced. The petitioner was 54 years at the time of filing the writ petition,
now she would be around 60 years and has attained superannuation. The
petitioner has served the college with unblemished record. But for the
above charge the petitioner’s service is unblemished. Taking all the factors
into consideration this Court is of the view that the punishment of stoppage
of increment with cumulative effect may be reduced to “Censure”.
14. The writ petition is allowed and the punishment is
modified to “Censure” and connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.351 of 2015
No costs.
24.11.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
trp
To
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment,
(Administration Department),
(President of College Committee) \,
Sri Parasakthi College for Women Courtallam,
O/o. Commissioner of HR and CE,
Chennai – 34.
2.The Secretary,
Sri Parasakthi College for Women,
Courtallam,
Tirunelveli District.
3. The Principal,
Sri Parasakthi College for Women,
Courtallam,
Tirunelveli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.351 of 2015
S. SRIMATHY, J.,
trp
W.P(MD) No. 351 of 2015 and
M.P(MD).No.1 of 2015
24.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
