Madras High Court
K.Seethalakshmi vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 30 September, 2021
W.A.No.1831/2019 etc. batch
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A.Nos.1831 to 1834, 1836 to 1838, 1840, 1841, 1846,
2080, 2089, 2091 to 2093, 2095, 2161, 2163 to 2166,
2169 to 2172, 2174 to 2176, 2184 to 2186, 2191 to 2196,
2198 to 2200, 2202 to 2204, 2206, 2208 to 2210,
2214, 2216, 2221, 2222, 2265 to 2273, 2275 to 2290,
2292 to 2294, 2296, 2327, 2329 to 2331, 2333, 2343, 2344,
2355, 2361, 2365, 2367, 2368, 2370, 2371, 2373,
2375 to 2390, 2392 to 2404, 2418, 2420, 2425, 2427,
2432 to 2437, 2440, 2441, 2448, 2450, 2453, 2454,
2487, 2488, 2490, 2491, 2493 to 2495, 2497 to 2530,
2532, 2534, 2535, 2536, 2543, 2544 to 2560,
2562, 2563, 2564 to 2576, 2578 to 2582, 2584 to 2597,
2601, 2603 to 2606, 2621 to 2623,
2698, 2699, 2708, 2712, 2713, 2721, 2730 to 2758, 2760,
2762, 2764 to 2767, 2769, 2772, 2774 to 2778, 2780 to 2782,
2784 to 2789, 2791, 2793 to 2798,
2833, 2835 to 2837, 2840, 2842, 2843, 2848, 2849,
2864 to 2866, 2868 to 2870, 2874 to 2876, 2918,
2943, 3096, 3098, 3100 to 3103, 3105, 3107 to 3109,
3112 to 3114, 3116, 3119, 3120, 3122, 3127,3128 to 3130,
3136 to 3156, 3158, 3177, 3258, 3260,
1653, 1655, 1656, 1658, 1659 and 1677 of 2019
and 447 to 449 of 2021
and connected miscellaneous petitions
W.A.No.1831 of 2019 :
K.Seethalakshmi .. Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 1/33
W.A.No.1831/2019 etc. batch
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary,
Higher Education Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Syndicate of Annamalai University
Rep. by its Chairman,
Annamalai Nagar, Chidambaram,
Cuddalore District-608 002.
3. The Annamalai University
Rep. by its Registrar,
Annamalai Nagar, Chidambaram,
Cuddalore District-608 002. .. Respondents/Respondents
***
Prayer in W.A.No.1831 of 2019 : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of
Letters Patent against the order dated 05.03.2019 in W.P.No.21769 of
2018.
***
For Appellants in WA : Mr.K.Venkaramani,
Nos.1831/2019, etc. Senior Counsel
for Mr.P.Ebenezer Paul
For Appellants in WA : Mr.P.Wilson,
Nos.2501/2019, etc. Senior Counsel
for M/s.Wilson Associates
For Appellants in WA : Mr.Syed Mustafa
Nos.2270/2019, etc.
For Appellants in WA : Mr.V.Ajoy Kohse
Nos.2501/2019, etc.
For Appellants in WA : Mr.V.Vijayshankar
Nos.2518/2019, etc. for Mr.J.Saravanavel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 2/33
W.A.No.1831/2019 etc. batch
For Appellants in WA : Mr.Udayakumar
Nos.2327/2019, etc. M/s.Karan and Uday
For Appellant(s) in WA : Mr.T.L.Thirumalaisamy
No.2784/2019
For Appellants in WA : Mr.R.Saravanakumar
Nos.2833/2019, etc.
For Appellants in WA : Mr.N.Manokaran
Nos.2875/2019, etc.
For Appellant in WA : Mr.J.Pooventhera Rajan
Nos.3096/2019
For Appellant in WA : Mr.Vijay Anand for
Nos.3260and 3258/2019 M/s.Vijay Anand Associates
For Appellants in WA : Mr.Menon, Karthik and
No.2080 of 2019 Mukundan
For Respondents : Mr.R.Neelakandan,
State Government Counsel
for State Government
Mr.Issac Mohanlal,
Senior Counsel
for M/s.Isaac Chambers
for Annamalai University
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 3/33
W.A.No.1831/2019 etc. batch
COMMON JUDGEMENT
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
The appellants in all these appeals are employees of the Annamalai
University/respondents 1 and 2, who have challenged the Resolution
No.41 dated 08.02.2017 of the Syndicate and the consequent Show
Cause Notice dated 13.08.2018 issued by the first respondent to the
appellants, which was dismissed by a common order on merits.
2. All these appellants are Post Graduates and have been working
in the respondents university in the post of Special Officers (Grade
I/Liaison Officers), based on their applications on various dates between
1995 and 2011. Subsequently, in the year 2013, the Annamalai
University was taken over by the Government as per the Annamalai
University Act, 2013 (in short, "the Act") and now the same is governed
by the provisions of the Act.
3. There are about 8443 non-teaching staffs appointed by the
University. After the completion of probationary period of 2 years, they
were regularized into service on various dates. Thus, all the writ
petitioners are governed by the Special Service Rules contained in
various Service Orders. The Syndicate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 4/33
W.A.No.1831/2019 etc. batch
noticed that some of the Special Officers did not meet the prescribed
qualifications for the post. As per the Standing Order, the required
educational qualification for the post of Special Officer is Post Graduate
degree with second class. Therefore, the University re-designated the
Special Officers with Post Graduate qualification, as Special Officer Grade
I/Liaison Officer with effect from 01.11.2015.
4. While so, the Syndicate passed a resolution dated 08.02.2017 to
declare that only 1110 posts were sanctioned for non-teaching posts as
against 8443 existing employees. Therefore, the Syndicate termed the
remaining 7333 non-teaching staff as surplus staff. The Syndicate had in
the said resolution dated 08.02.2017 resolved to solve the problem of
surplus staff by creating supernumerary posts to accommodate all the
8443 non-teaching staff, but it was also resolved to downgrade and refix
the pay scale of the Special Officer Grade I, including the appellants
herein, in the pay band of Rs.9300 + 4600, as against the existing pay
scale of Rs.15600 + 5400. Initially, the pay scales of the appellants were
re-fixed, which were challenged by some of them, by filing writ petitions.
The respondents University withdrew the orders re-fixing the pay scales.
Now, pursuant to the impugned resolution dated 08.02.2017, all the
appellants were served with the Show Cause Notices calling upon them
to explain as to why their pay scales should not be downgraded. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 5/33
W.A.No.1831/2019 etc. batch
appellants had individually challenged the Show Cause Notices issued to
them, which were dismissed by the learned Single Judge on various
dates 05.03.2019, 12.03.2019, 10.04.2019, against which the above
appeals are preferred.
5. Mr.K.Venkatramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for some
of the appellants relied upon Section 20 of the Act to contend that the
role of the Syndicate is defined therein. Section 20(v)(i)(ii) of the Act
reads thus:
"20. (1) The Syndicate shall have the following powers,
namely:-
.....
(v) (i) to appoint the Assistant Professors, Associate
Professors, 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;
(ii) to prescribe the mode of appointment of administrative
and other similar posts and fix their emoluments, if any, define
their duties and the conditions of their services and provide for
filling up of temporary vacancies."
6. The powers and duties of the Vice-Chancellor is defined under
section 10 of the Act. According to learned counsel, after the decision
was taken by the Vice-Chencellor on 30.07.2018, the impugned show
cause notices were issued, without any authority. In this regard, the
University had filed a counter affidavit, wherein, it has been stated in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 6/33
W.A.No.1831/2019 etc. batch
paragraph 30 as follows :
"30. ..... Accordingly, fresh notices dated 13.08.2018 were
issued to the petitioners after a decision was taken by the Vice
Chancellor vide order dated 30.07.2018 to process the proposal
and by taking the remarks/explanations of the petitioners. In
view of the decision of the University to withdraw the notices and
the orders of this Hon'ble Court datead 28.06.2018, the decision
of the Finance Committee dated 18.01.2017 and the syndicate
Resolution dated 08.02.2017 approving re-designation of the
petitioners have become obsolete and invalid. The fresh show
cause notices have been issued pursuant to decision of the
University Vice Chancellor vide order dated 30.07.2018 to
process the proposal of re-designation after taking the
remarks/explanations of the petitioners and after providing them
an opportunity of personal hearing. The said decision was
approved by the Syndicate of the University vide its resolution
dated 12.11.2018. The grounds raised in the writ petitions are
not tenable. There is no violation of Article 14 and 16 of
Constitution of India. The other statements relating to the posts
of Assistant Registrar, Senior Superintendent, Superintendent,
Deputy Garden Superintendent and Senior Foreman Grade-I are
not correct and therefore denied."
7. When an objection was raised, this court had passed an order on
14.07.2021 recording the statement of the University that in view of the
decision of the University to withdraw the notice and orders of this court
dated 28.06.2018, the decision of the Finance Committee dated
18.01.2017 and the approval of the Syndicate dated 08.02.2017 have
become obsolete and invalid. The fresh show cause notices under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 7/33
W.A.No.1831/2019 etc. batch
challenge, were issued only pursuant to the decision of the Vice-
Chancellor vide letter dated 30.07.2018. The learned Senior Counsel,
further added that the decision of the Vice-Chancellor, is without
authority, as Vice-Chancellor cannot take decision, with respect to
service rights and therefore, the issuance of Show Cause Notices as such
is non-est in the eye of law.
8. Mr.P.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
some of the appellants submitted that the entire issue regarding the
show cause notice is settled. He pointedly argued that (i) the courts can
interfere in show cause notice when it is an abuse of process of law ; (ii)
as already mentioned, as the first show cause notice was withdrawn, the
principles of res-judicata will apply ; (iii) all the appellants have been
under the employment of the respondents university for a decade or
more and that the sudden alteration of pay scale would cause serious
prejudice and loss and will deprive the legitimate expectation; and (iv)
the university had already decided the entire issue and issuance of the
impugned show cause notices is only a post decisional opportunity, which
would amount to an empty formality.
8.1. The learned Senior Counsel had drawn the attention of this
Court to Section 58(3)(e) of the Act, which states that all the
appointments of the officers, teachers and employees subsisting
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 8/33
W.A.No.1831/2019 etc. batch
immediately before the date of the commencement of the Act, shall be
deemed to have been made under the said Act and they shall continue to
hold office in the University, subject to the conditions governing the
terms of their office of employment. He also referred to Section 44 of the
Act, which relates to conditions of service, and argued that the appellants
having been appointed under the old rules, have protection under Section
58(3)(e) of the Act and thus prayed for setting aside the show cause
notices.
8.2. The learned Senior Counsel also relied on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in H.L. Trehan v. Union of India, 1989 (1)
SCC 764, wherein, it has been held as follows :
"11. One of the contentions that was urged by
Respondents 1 to 4 before the High Court at the hearing of the
writ petition, as noticed above, is that unguided and arbitrary
powers have been vested in the official by sub-section (1) of
Section 11 for the alteration of the terms and conditions of
service of the employees. It has been observed by the High Court
that although the terms and conditions of service could be
altered by CORIL, but such alteration has to be made “duly” as
provided in sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act. The High
Court has placed reliance upon the ordinary dictionary meaning
of the word “duly” which, according to Concise Oxford Dictionary,
means “rightly, properly, fitly” and according to Stroud's Judicial
Dictionary, 4th Edn., the word “duly” means “done in due course
and according to law”. In our opinion, the word “duly” is very
significant and excludes any arbitrary exercise of power under
Section 11(2). It is now a well-established principle of law that
there can be no deprivation or curtailment of any existing right,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 9/33
W.A.No.1831/2019 etc. batch
advantage or benefit enjoyed by a government servant without
complying with the rules of natural justice by giving the
government servant concerned an opportunity of being heard.
Any arbitrary or whimsical exercise of power prejudicially
affecting the existing conditions of service of a government
servant will offend against the provision of Article 14 of the
Constitution. Admittedly, the employees of CORIL were not given
an opportunity of hearing or representing their case before the
impugned circular was issued by the Board of Directors. The
impugned circular cannot, therefore, be sustained as it offends
against the rules of natural justice.
12. It is, however, contended on behalf of CORIL that after
the impugned circular was issued, an opportunity of hearing was
given to the employees with regard to the alterations made in the
conditions of their service by the impugned circular. In our
opinion, the post-decisional opportunity of hearing does not
subserve the rules of natural justice. The authority who embarks
upon a post-decisional hearing will naturally proceed with a
closed mind and there is hardly any chance of getting a proper
consideration of the representation at such a post-decisional
opportunity. In this connection, we may refer to a recent decision
of this Court in K.I. Shephard v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC
431. What happened in that case was that the Hindustan
Commercial Bank, the Bank of Cochin Ltd. and Lakshmi
Commercial Bank, which were private banks, were amalgamated
with Punjab National Bank, Canara Bank and State Bank of India
respectively in terms of separate schemes drawn under Section
45 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Pursuant to the
schemes, certain employees of the first mentioned three banks
were excluded from employment and their services were not
taken over by the respective transferee banks. Such exclusion
was made without giving the employees, whose services were
terminated, an opportunity of being heard. Ranganath Misra, J.
speaking for the court observed as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 10/33
W.A.No.1831/2019 etc. batch
“We may now point out that the learned Single Judge
for the Kerala High Court had proposed a post-
amalgamation hearing to meet the situation but that has
been vacated by the Division Bench. For the reasons we
have indicated, there is no justification to think of a post-
decisional hearing. On the other hand the normal rule
should apply. It was also contended on behalf of the
respondents that the excluded employees could not
represent and their case could be examined. We do not
think that would meet the ends of justice. They have
already been thrown out of employment and having been
deprived of livelihood they must be facing serious
difficulties. There is no justification to throw them out of
employment and then give them an opportunity of
representation when the requirement is that they should
have the opportunity referred to above as a condition
precedent to action. It is common experience that once a
decision has been taken, there is a tendency to uphold it
and a representation may not really yield any fruitful
purpose.”
8.3. Besides the above, the learned Senior Counsel also relied on
the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Grid Corpn. of Orissa
v. Rasananda Das, (2003) 10 SCC 297, and Union of India and
another V. Vicco Laboratories, (2007) 13 SCC 270.
9. Mr. Vijayashankar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
Mr.J.Saravanavel, learned counsel on record for some of the appellants,
also reiterated the fact that the show cause notices dated 13.08.2008
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 11/33
W.A.No.1831/2019 etc. batch
has to go, if it is not issued pursuant to the Syndicate and the Finance
Committee resolution. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Siemens Ltd. V. State of Maharashtra (2006) 12
SCC 33, it was contended by the learned counsel that (i) the competent
authority is the Syndicate and when Syndicate resolution has become
obsolete, the show cause notice issued by the Registrar is invalid and the
show cause notices show the pre-determination of the respondents
University, which warrants interference from this Court; (ii) when there is
no post of Assistant Section Officer in the respondents University,
reverting the appellants to a non-existing post is illegal and arbitrary; (iii)
Sections 84 and 87 of the Annamalai University Service Statutes of
Administrative/Non-teaching Staff (Condition of Service) provide for
revision of terms and conditions of service without detriment to the rights
and privileges of the existing employees; and (iv) the Liaison Officers in
the Distance Education Programme have been collecting huge amounts
by way of fees, for the University and their services cannot be
terminated.
10. Mr.Syed Mustafa, learned counsel also contended that once the
resolution of the Syndicate and the Finance Committee is withdrawn, the
present Show Cause Notices having been issued without any authority,
are not maintainable applying the maxim "sublato fundamento cadit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 12/33
W.A.No.1831/2019 etc. batch
opus". The learned counsel submitted that once the foundation goes, the
entire proceedings get crumbled. The withdrawal of the resolution as
stated in para 30 of the counter affidavit itself is malice in law and cannot
be permitted. He placed reliance on Coal India Ltd. v. Ananta Saha,
(2011) 5 SCC 142, wherein, it has been held thus :
"32. It is a settled legal proposition that if initial action is
not in consonance with law, subsequent proceedings would not
sanctify the same. In such a fact situation, the legal maxim
sublato fundamento cadit opus is applicable, meaning thereby, in
case a foundation is removed, the superstructure falls.
10.1. He pointed out that the show cause notice contained financial
implication due to the entry of the appellants. It was contended that the
downgradation of the appellants amounts to reversion as all of them are
Professors and Assistant Professors and cited Section 58(e) of the saving
clause of the service statute. Secondly, the learned counsel argued that
the appellants cannot be reverted to the lower post than the entry cadre.
10.2. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision in
South Bengal State Transport Corpn. v. Ashok Kumar Ghosh,
(2010) 11 SCC 71, wherein, it was held thus :
"20. We may next consider whether the punishment is
permissible in service jurisprudence. It is well settled that while
an employee can be reverted to a lower post or service, he
cannot be reverted to a post lower than the post in which he
entered service (see Nyadar Singh v. Union of India, (1988) 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 13/33
W.A.No.1831/2019 etc. batch
SCC 170. Further, it is also well settled that reversion to a lower
post or service does not permit reversion to a post outside the
cadre, that is, from a regular post to a daily-wage post. We are
therefore of the view that the punishment inflicted on the
delinquent employee not being one of the punishments
enumerated in Regulation 36, is not permissible in law."
10.3. The Learned Counsel also expressed the grievance that the
Pay Commission benefits were not given to the appellants, though they
are entitled to in view of section 58(3)(e) of the Act.
11. Mr.Ajay Khose, learned counsel submitted that in view of Article
162 of the Constitution, even the State has limited power in respect of
the concurrent matters and thus, the University cannot have such power
to issue show cause notice. The posts of the appellants are in the
Standing Orders and without amendment, the posts cannot be removed.
It was also objected that earlier decision of the Syndicate could be
withdrawn only in a subsequent meeting by the Syndicate and the Vice-
Chancellor order dated 30.07.2018 is without authority.
12. Per contra, Mr.Issac Mohanlal, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of Annamalai University, made the following
submissions :
(i) what is given is only a Show Cause Notice, which normally,
cannot be challenged in a Court of Law ;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 14/33
W.A.No.1831/2019 etc. batch
(ii) when the Government took over the university on 24.09.2013,
there were enormous, immense and surplusage of the staff, who started
eroding the university ;
(iii) the teaching staffs were re-deployed in various colleges, as
when only 1110 non-teaching staff were required, there were 4722 staff
available on the rolls of the University.
(iv) the university had re-deployed 2635 staff in various
departments as per G.O.Ms.No.108, dated 28.04.2017. The appellants
are only one of the types of non-teaching staff, numbering 798, when the
required number is only 4.
(v) the impugned show cause notices were issued only for 785 ;
(vi) when the Finance Committee has become otiose qua the
appellants, then it cannot be relied. The 1 st show cause notice dated
02.04.2018 was withdrawn with liberty to issue 2nd show cause notice.
12.1. The learned Senior Counsel also added that Annamalai
University Service Statutes dated 01.11.2016 is yet to get the assent of
the Hon'ble Governor/Chancellor and therefore, it becomes inoperative.
In the absence of a statute as on date, the University Syndicate has to
decide. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that, pursuant to
the order of the Vice-Chancellor on 30.07.2018, the impugned Show
Cause Notices were issued on 13.08.2018. The Syndicate had ratified the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 15/33
W.A.No.1831/2019 etc. batch
same on 12.11.2018, however, the writ petition came to be filed on
24.08.2018. Therefore, the ratification relates back to the date of action.
In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel relied on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Mining Corpn. v. Sunil,
(2006) 5 SCC 96.
"5. The High Court allowed the writ petition holding that
the Managing Director was not competent to terminate the
respondent's services as on the date of the passing of the order
of termination and therefore the order of dismissal was invalid.
The High Court was also of the view that this defect could not be
rectified subsequently by the resolution of the Board of Directors.
The High Court accordingly set aside the order of termination.
Since the respondent had already retired from service, the
appellant was directed to reinstate the respondent notionally with
effect from the date of termination in the same post and pay
salaries up to the date of superannuation and to pay all retiral
benefits after the date of superannuation."
14. We have heard the learned Senior Counsels and the learned
counsels on either side and perused the materials placed before us.
15. In the light of the above arguments, the questions that arise
for determination in these writ appeals are whether,
(i) the Show Cause Notice can be challenged in writ petition ?
(ii) the Show Cause Notice is a premature one ?
(iii) the contents of the Show Cause Notice show predetermination
on the part of the respondents University ? and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 16/33
W.A.No.1831/2019 etc. batch
(iv) the respondents are competent and have jurisdiction to issue
the Show Cause Notice ?
16. The contentions of the learned Senior Counsel for the
University is that the challenge to the Show Cause Notice is premature,
as it does not give rise to any cause of action. The Show Cause Notice
also does not amount to an adverse order, which affects the rights of the
parties. The necessity for issuing the Show Cause Notices is a pre-
requisite of principles of natural justice. The rules of natural justice are
not embedded rules and therefore, it cannot be equated with the
fundamental rights. Normally, the Show Cause Notice is issued with an
aim to secure justice and to prevent miscarriage of justice. In this
regard, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines
v. Ramjee, (1977) 2 SCC 256, wherein, Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.R.Krishna
Iyer, speaking for the Bench, held as follows :
"13. The last violation regarded as a lethal objection is that
the Board did not enquire of the respondent, independently of the
one done by the Regional Inspector. Assuming it to be necessary,
here the respondent has, in the form of an appeal against the
report of the Regional Inspector, sent his explanation to the
Chairman of the Board. He has thus been heard and compliance
with Regulation 26, in the circumstances, is complete. Natural
justice is no unruly horse, no lurking landmine, nor a judicial
cure-all. If fairness is shown by the decision-maker to the man
proceeded against, the form, features and the fundamentals of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 17/33
W.A.No.1831/2019 etc. batch
such essential processual propriety being conditioned by the facts
and circumstances of each situation, no breach of natural justice
can be complained of. Unnatural expansion of natural justice,
without reference to the administrative realities and other factors
of a given case, can be exasperating. We can neither be finical
nor fanatical but should be flexible yet firm in this jurisdiction. No
man shall be hit below the belt — that is the conscience of the
matter."
The above decision also justifies that the writ petitions shall not be
encouraged to circumvent the procedure to challenge the administration
action taken.
17. Insofar as the prejudice that may be caused to the appellants is
concerned, unless it is shown that the procedural requirements have not
been complied with to hold that the issuance of Show Cause Notice itself
ipso facto illegal, the appellants cannot be said to prejudicially affected
by the impugned Show Cause Notices. This Court also cannot embark to
decide the factual disputes, but relegate the appellants to submit the
reply before the respondents University.
18. The next ground raised while assailing the impugned Show
Cause Notices is that it is premeditated and predetermined and issuance
of the same is only an empty formality. Earlier on 02.04.2018, the Show
Cause Notice was issued and when it was put to challenge before this
Court, the same was withdrawn obtaining liberty to issue a fresh Show
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 18/33
W.A.No.1831/2019 etc. batch
Cause Notice. The said order passed on 28.06.2018, granting liberty to
the University to withdraw the earlier Show Cause Notice and issue a
fresh Show Cause Notice, was not challenged by the appellants. Hence,
the present Show Cause Notices now issued cannot be questioned by the
appellants.
18.1. The resolution per se will not give rise for a cause of action to
the appellants to challenge the Show Cause Notices. The allegation that
the impugned Show Cause Notices are issued only as a post decisional
opportunity and it is an empty formality, cannot be accepted, as the
Show Cause Notices only indicate the issue to be addressed by the
appellants. Once the Show Cause Notice is issued, it is like giving an
opportunity to give reply to the same and after receiving response or
affording an opportunity of hearing, if any order is passed, that would
give a cause of action. To give such reply or response to a Show Cause
Notice, the Show Cause Notice has to indicate the issue pertaining to
which, action is proposed to be taken.
18.2. In this regard, it would be useful to refer to the following
paragraphs of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gorkha
Security Services v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), (2014) 9 SCC 105 :
"21. The central issue, however, pertains to the
requirement of stating the action which is proposed to be taken.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 19/33
W.A.No.1831/2019 etc. batch
The fundamental purpose behind the serving of show-cause
notice is to make the noticee understand the precise case set up
against him which he has to meet. This would require the
statement of imputations detailing out the alleged breaches and
defaults he has committed, so that he gets an opportunity to
rebut the same. Another requirement, according to us, is the
nature of action which is proposed to be taken for such a breach.
That should also be stated so that the noticee is able to point out
that proposed action is not warranted in the given case, even if
the defaults/breaches complained of are not satisfactorily
explained. When it comes to blacklisting, this requirement
becomes all the more imperative, having regard to the fact that it
is harshest possible action.
22. The High Court has simply stated that the purpose of
show-cause notice is primarily to enable the noticee to meet the
grounds on which the action is proposed against him. No doubt,
the High Court is justified to this extent. However, it is equally
important to mention as to what would be the consequence if the
noticee does not satisfactorily meet the grounds on which an
action is proposed. To put it otherwise, we are of the opinion that
in order to fulfil the requirements of principles of natural justice,
a show-cause notice should meet the following two requirements
viz:
(i) The material/grounds to be stated which according to
the department necessitates an action;
(ii) Particular penalty/action which is proposed to be taken.
It is this second requirement which the High Court has failed to
omit.
We may hasten to add that even if it is not specifically mentioned
in the show-cause notice but it can clearly and safely be
discerned from the reading thereof, that would be sufficient to
meet this requirement."
The point, which is before this Court, is whether the said Show Cause
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 20/33
W.A.No.1831/2019 etc. batch
Notices are vitiated on account of bias. The enquiry notice by itself
cannot prejudice the appellants in any manner.
18.3. The aforesaid judgment is followed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in a recent judgment in UMC Technologies Private Limited V.
Food Corporation of India and another, (2021) 2 SCC 551,
wherein, it was held as follows :
"13. At the outset, it must be noted that it is the first
principle of civilised jurisprudence that a person against whom
any action is sought to be taken or whose right or interests are
being affected should be given a reasonable opportunity to
defend himself. The basic principle of natural justice is that
before adjudication starts, the authority concerned should give to
the affected party a notice of the case against him so that he can
defend himself. Such notice should be adequate and the grounds
necessitating action and the penalty/action proposed should be
mentioned specifically and unambiguously. An order travelling
beyond the bounds of notice is impermissible and without
jurisdiction to that extent. This Court in Nasir Ahmad v.
Custodian General, Evacuee Property, (1980) 3 SCC 1 has held
that it is essential for the notice to specify the particular grounds
on the basis of which an action is proposed to be taken so as to
enable the noticee to answer the case against him. If these
conditions are not satisfied, the person cannot be said to have
been granted any reasonable opportunity of being heard."
18.4. In an earlier decision in New Samundri Transport Co. (P)
Ltd. V. State of Punjab, (1976) 1 SCC 757, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that unless the breaches of conditions or other allegations are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 21/33
W.A.No.1831/2019 etc. batch
particularised in the show-cause notice, such notice is clearly invalid and
no action can be taken under such a notice.
18.5. In the Show Cause Notices impugned in the writ petitions, it
is only stated that with the intent of striking a balance between the
deteriorating financial position of the University and avoiding
retrenchment of the surplus officers, who have no work, the University is
exploring the possibility of accommodating the surplus officers against
some other cadre for the time-being. The appellants are post graduates
and are Special Officers Grade-I/Liaison Officers, who are now sought to
be accommodated in the cadre of Assistant Section Officer. Therefore,
the Show Cause Notices only expressed its intention to accommodate the
surplus officers in the post of Assistant Section Officer and there is no
pre-determination and it was only indicated the intention proposed.
18.6. In the light of the above judgments, in the instant appeals,
the Show Cause Notices indicated that the appellants would be reduced
to the rank of Assistant Section Officer and the reply/objection or the
reasoning of the appellants are sought before putting into action. If the
Show Cause Notice does not suggest the reason, for which, it was issued
and the proposed action, then it would be prejudicial to the appellants for
not giving appropriate reason or response. If the Show Cause Notice is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 22/33
W.A.No.1831/2019 etc. batch
issued without giving out the reason, the noticee cannot be taken by
surprise at the time of enquiry, as he may not be prepared to
countenance the cause that is put to him.
19. It is no doubt true that any Show Cause Notice issued cannot
be challenged for the simple reason that it does not give rise to a cause
of action to the parties, as it is quite possible that after considering the
response from the noticees or after holding any enquiry, the authority
may drop the proceedings or may reject the reasons given by the
noticees. When such being the fact, in the absence of any infringement of
right by the authorities, the appellants cannot have any cause of action
to challenge the Show Cause Notice, which is a premature one.
19.1. Mr.V.Vijayashankar, learned counsel for the appellant relied
on the following portion of the judgment in Siemens Limited (cited
supra) :
"9. Although ordinarily a writ court may not exercise its
discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition
questioning a notice to show cause unless the same inter alia
appears to have been without jurisdiction as has been held by
this Court in some decisions including State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt
Sharma (1987) 2 SCC 179, Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam
Ghouse (2004) 3 SCC 440 and Union of India v. Kunisetty
Satyanarayana (2006) 12 SCC 28, but the question herein has to
be considered from a different angle viz. when a notice is issued
with premeditation, a writ petition would be maintainable. In
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 23/33
W.A.No.1831/2019 etc. batch
such an event, even if the court directs the statutory authority to
hear the matter afresh, ordinarily such hearing would not yield
any fruitful purpose. (See K.I. Shephard v. Union of India (1987)
4 SCC 431. It is evident in the instant case that the respondent
has clearly made up its mind. It explicitly said so both in the
counter-affidavit as also in its purported show-cause notice."
19.2. Mr.P.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants relied
on the following judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Union of India v. VICCO Laboratories, (2007) 13 SCC 270 :
"31. Normally, the writ court should not interfere at the
stage of issuance of show-cause notice by the authorities. In such
a case, the parties get ample opportunity to put forth their
contentions before the authorities concerned and to satisfy the
authorities concerned about the absence of case for proceeding
against the person against whom the show-cause notices have
been issued. Abstinence from interference at the stage of
issuance of show-cause notice in order to relegate the parties to
the proceedings before the authorities concerned is the normal
rule. However, the said rule is not without exceptions. Where a
show-cause notice is issued either without jurisdiction or in an
abuse of process of law, certainly in that case, the writ court
would not hesitate to interfere even at the stage of issuance of
show-cause notice. The interference at the show-cause notice
stage should be rare and not in a routine manner. Mere assertion
by the writ petitioner that notice was without jurisdiction and/or
abuse of process of law would not suffice. It should be prima facie
established to be so. Where factual adjudication would be
necessary, interference is ruled out."
19.3. On the other hand, Mr.Issac Mohanlal, learned Senior
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 24/33
W.A.No.1831/2019 etc. batch
Counsel appearing for the Annamalai University, heavily relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India V. Kunisetty
Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28, wherein, reiterating the well-
settled principle that ordinarily no writ lies against the show cause notice,
it has been observed as follows :
"13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court
that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show-cause
notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v.
Ramesh Kumar Singh (1996) 1 SCC 327, Special Director v.
Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse (2004) 3 SCC 440, Ulagappa v. Divisional
Commr., Mysore (2001) 10 SCC 639, State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt
Sharma (1987) 2 SCC 179, etc.
14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be
entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is
that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature.
A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to
any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse
order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has
been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is
quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause
notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may
drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not
established. It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some
right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or
charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only
when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise
adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be
said to have any grievance.
15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence
such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be
exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge-sheet.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 25/33
W.A.No.1831/2019 etc. batch
16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the
High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is
found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if
it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not
interfere in such a matter."
19.4. Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court in VICCO Laboratories
(cited supra), relied on by Mr.P.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel, held
that "mere assertion by the writ petitioner that notice was without
jurisdiction and/or abuse of process of law, would not suffice and it
should be prima facie established to be so. Where factual adjudication
would be necessary, interference is ruled out." In view of the above
judgments, we are of the view that the Show Cause Notices cannot be
interfered with by the Constitutional Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution excepting the circumstances enunciated by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in a catenae of decisions including the decisions referred
to herein-above.
20. The pointed argument of the learned counsel for the appellants
is that as per Section 58(3)(e) of the Act, all the appointment of officers,
employees, etc. of the University subsisting immediately before the date
of the commencement of the Act, shall be deemed to have been made
under and for the purposes of the Act and shall continue to hold the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 26/33
W.A.No.1831/2019 etc. batch
office, the University deemed to have been established under the said
Act. Such argument is irrelevant at this point, as the appellants continue
to be the employees of the University and even what is contemplated in
the Show Cause Notice is only reduction of the rank and reprising of their
post. Therefore, the jurisdiction or the competency to issue the Show
Cause Notice cannot be decided at this stage.
21. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Senior
counsel for the Annamalai University that, of the 785 noticees, 487 alone
had appealed, as 97 have accepted the re-designation and 192 have not
challenged, while writ appeals were filed questioning the validity of the
very same notices, which are put to challenge now. The said appeals
were decided by a Coordinate Division Bench of this Court as early as on
05.11.2019 in W.A.No.3215 of 2019 etc., batch [K.C.Chandra
Sekar V. The Annamalai University rep. by its Registrar (In-
charge)], wherein also, the similar objections of the appellants were
rejected and the Show Cause Notices were upheld, as there was no error
or infirmity in the same. The Division Bench, while upholding a similar
order of the learned Single Judge referred to the following legal maxim
and its meaning in paragraph 9 :
"Omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta" - Literally, it
means, "All things are presumed to be done in due form" ; in law,
it implies that where it has been proved that an "official act" has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 27/33
W.A.No.1831/2019 etc. batch
been done, it will be presumed to be done in due form, until the
contrary is proved."
22. We are of the view that no ground is made out by the learned
counsel for the appellants warranting us to take a different view and in
such circumstances, we are duty bound to follow the judgment of a
Coordinate Bench. In this regard, it is apt to refer to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited
V. Rajesh Kumar, (2012) 7 SCC 1, upon which, reliance is placed by
the learned Senior Counsel for the Annamalai University, wherein, it was
enunciated as under :
"17. Similarly, the Division Bench at Lucknow erroneously
treated the verdict of the Allahabad Bench not to be a binding
precedent on the foundation that the principles laid down by the
Constitution Bench in M. Nagaraj (2006) 8 SCC 212 are not being
appositely appreciated and correctly applied by the Bench when
there was reference to the said decision and a number of passages
were quoted and appreciated albeit incorrectly, the same could not
have been a ground to treat the decision as per incuriam or not a
binding precedent. Judicial discipline commands in such a situation
when there is disagreement, to refer the matter to a larger Bench.
Instead of doing that, the Division Bench at Lucknow took the
burden on themselves to decide the case.
20. The aforesaid pronouncements clearly lay down what is
expected from the Judges when they are confronted with the
decision of a Coordinate Bench on the same issue. Any contrary
attitude, however adventurous and glorious it may be, would lead to
uncertainty and inconsistency. It has precisely so happened in the
case at hand. There are two decisions by two Division Benches from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 28/33
W.A.No.1831/2019 etc. batch
the same High Court. We express our concern about the deviation
from the judicial decorum and discipline by both the Benches and
expect that in future, they shall be appositely guided by the
conceptual eventuality of such discipline as laid down by this Court
from time to time. We have said so with the fond hope that judicial
enthusiasm should not obliterate the profound responsibility that is
expected from the Judges."
23. As stated above, the appellants having not been made out any
new ground warranting interference in the impugned action, we are left
with no option, but to follow the judgment of a Coordinate Bench referred
to above.
24. The learned counsel for the appellants Mr.Syed Mustafa
contended that Pay Commission benefits were not given to the
appellants, though they are entitled to in view of section 58(3)(e) of the
Act. We are of the view that the said ground cannot be canvassed in
these appeals. Further, the said issue has been negatived by the Division
Bench in the judgment referred to above in the following manner:
"33. The order dated 21.09.2019 made in W.P(MD).Nos.
11068 & 11069 of 2018 [M.Dhanasekara Pandian v. The Registrar,
Annamalai University] relied on by the learned counsel appearing for
the appellants has no application to the case on hand for the reason
that challenge was made to the proceedings of the Registrar
denying the recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission to certain
employees of the University, by placing reliance upon Section 53 of
the Annamalai University Act, 2013. It is not as if the the
appellants/writ petitioners are going to be terminated/ousted from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 29/33
W.A.No.1831/2019 etc. batch
their jobs and for the purpose of striking a balance between the
deteriorating financial position of the University, show cause notices
have been issued and it cannot be found fault on the present facts
and circumstances and also on the settled legal position with regard
to the grounds of challenge."
25. The argument by Mr.Mustafa based on Malice in law is also not
tenable. In this case, the notices in question have been challenged and
sought to be quashed on the ground that the notices disclose
premeditation or bias and therefore, are violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. However, there is no personal ill-will attributed to
specific person. Accordingly, this Court is unable to find any traces of
premeditated mind on the part of the University from the reading of the
Show Cause Notices, which are mere notices affording opportunity to the
appellants to response to the proposal contained in the Show Cause
Notices.
26. A feeble attempt was made by the learned counsel for the
appellants that the Tamil Nadu Government proposed to amend the Act
to convert the Annamalai University from a unitary institution into an
affiliating type University and it will ease out the difficulties of the
appellants and create more new posts, in which, the appellants could be
accommodated, we are of the view that the said ground cannot be raised
before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 30/33
W.A.No.1831/2019 etc. batch
27. Considering the fact that the issue is pending at the Show
Cause Notice stage itself for years, the appellants are directed to submit
their reply/response/objection within a period of two weeks, if not
submitted earlier and the respondents University, shall proceed with the
same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. It goes
without saying that the appellants are entitled to raise all the grounds
before the respondents.
28. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any error in the
orders of the learned single judge, which are impugned in these writ
appeals, as there is no merit in these appeals and accordingly, these
appeals are dismissed as devoid of merits. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed. The parties shall bear their own costs.
[P.S.N., J.] [K.R., J.]
30.09.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
gg
To
1. The Principal Secretary,
Higher Education Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Chairman,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 31/33
W.A.No.1831/2019 etc. batch
Syndicate of Annamalai University,
Annamalai Nagar, Chidambaram,
Cuddalore District-608 002.
3. The Registrar,
Annamalai University
Annamalai Nagar, Chidambaram,
Cuddalore District-608 002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 32/33
W.A.No.1831/2019 etc. batch
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
AND
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
gg
W.A.No.1831 of 2019, etc. batch
30.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 33/33
