Madras High Court
M.Mercina vs The Secretary And Correspondent on 6 December, 2023
W.P.No.5597 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.12.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.P.No.5597 of 2020
and
W.M.P.No.6552 of 2020
M.Mercina ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Secretary and Correspondent,
Loyola College, Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 034.
2. Rev.Fr.Provincial,
Madurai Jesuit Province,
Governing Body Chairman of Loyola College,
St. Mary's Residence, P.Box No.6,
Dindingul 624 001.
3. The University of Madras,
Rep. By its Registrar,
University Centenary Building,
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the Show Cause
Notice dated 08.02.2020 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the
same.
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5597 of 2020
For Petitioner : M/s.K.Aparna Devi
For respondnets : Mr.Godson Swaminathan
for M/s. Isaac Chambers for RR1 & 2
: Mr.A.S.Vijyaragavan
standing counsel for R3
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed against the impugned notice dated
08.02.2020 issued by the 1st respondent.
2.Heard M/s.K.Aparna Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.Godson Swaminathan for M/s. Isaac Chambers, learned counsel for the
respondents 1 & 2 and Mr.A.S.Vijyaragavan, learned counsel for the 3rd
respondent and perused the materials available on record.
“1. The learned counsel for the writ
petitioner made a submission that the
respondents Management may be permitted to
issue a fresh Show Cause Notice setting out the
reasons for the deviation of the findings of the
Enquiry Report.
3. M/s.K.Aparna Devi, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner was appointed as Physics Lecturer in the 1 st respondent /
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
College on 04.06.2006. On 07.12.2017, the petitioner was issued with a
suspension order by the 1st respondent. On account of certain charges
against the petitioner, one Mr.Pauldas (Retired Judge) was appointed as the
Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry, who in turn submitted her report on
03.04.2018. In the said report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, it was
found that none of the charges have been proved against the petitioner.
Subsequently, the impugned show-cause notice dated 12.06.2018 was issued
by the 1st respondent / College for disagreeing the findings of the Enquiry
Officer. On 06.07.2018 the petitioner sent a reply to the notice.
4. Considering the request letter submitted by the petitioner on
11.07.2018, the 1st respondent revoked the suspension order. The 1st
respondent's impugned show-cause notice dated 12.06.2018 was challenged
by a similarly placed person by filing a Writ Petition in W.P.No.16679 of
2018 and in which the following order dated 08.03.2019 has been passed:
1.The learned counsel for the Writ
Petitioner made a submission that the
respondents management may be permitted to
issue a fresh show cause notice setting out the
reasons for the deviation of the findings of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Enquiry Report.
2. In view of the undertaking given by the
learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the
impugned show cause notice issued in
proceedings dated 12.06.2018 is quashed. The
respondents are at liberty to issue a fresh Show-
Cause Notice setting out all the facts and
circumstances and the reasons for deviating the
Enquiry Report and communicate the same to
the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner is at
liberty to submit his objections / explanations in
respect of the Show Cause Notice to be issued
and only thereafter, the Competent Authority is
empowered to consider the materials available
on record, take a decision and pass final orders
in the disciplinary proceedings.
3. With these directions, the Writ Petition
stands partly allowed. No costs. Consequently,
the connected miscellaneous petitions are also
closed.”
5. Subsequent to the aforesaid order dated 08.03.2019, another
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
show-cause notice dated 08.02.2020 was issued by the 1st respondent,
calling upon the petitioner to submit her explanation. However, the said
show-cause notice does not contain any particulars as to the reasons why the
1st respondent differs from the findings and conclusions arrived by the
Enquiry Officer.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dissent
Note recorded by the Disciplinary Authority attached with the said
show-cause notice also does not contain any particulars as to why the
1st respondent has not chosen to accept the appreciation of the Enquiry
Officer report. The petitioner had also retired from service, subsequently.
7. Mr.A.S.Vijyaragavan, learned standing counsel appearing for the
3rd respondent submitted that at this stage, the merits of the show-cause
notice cannot be gone into and the petitioner has to participate in the enquiry
proceedings.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of the Union of India and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
others -vs- P.Gunasekaran reported in [(2015) 2 SCC 610]. The relevant
portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:-
“ 12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully
disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an
appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings,
reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry
officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the
disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary
proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a
second court of first appeal. The High Court, in
exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India, shall not venture into
reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can
only see whether:
(a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
(b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure
prescribed in that behalf;
(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice
in conducting the proceedings;
(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from
reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations
extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be
influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly
arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person
could ever have arrived at such conclusion;
(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to
admit the admissible and material evidence;
(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted
inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
13. Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India,
the High Court shall not:
(i) reappreciate the evidence;
(ii) interference with the conclusions in the enquiry, in
case the same has been conducted in accordance with
law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interference, if there be some legal evidence on
which the findings can be based;
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may
appear to be;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it
shocks its conscience.”
9. However, the above judgment relates to the disciplinary proceedings
that had already been initiated. But in the instant case, it is only in the initial
stage of issuing a show-cause notice. The petitioner's endeavour is to make
the 1st respondent to appreciate the merits of the enquiry report, which has
findings that charges against the petitioner was not proved and then pass an
order.
10. The Writ Petition stands disposed of by giving liberty to the
petitioner to submit her explanation to the 1st respondent and on receipt of
the same the 1st respondent shall consider the same in accordance with its
own merits and pass an order within a period of four weeks from the date of
receiving the explanation of the petitioner. No costs. Consequently, the
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
06.12.2023
jrs
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Secretary and Correspondent,
Loyola College, Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 034.
2. Rev.Fr.Provincial,
Madurai Jesuit Province,
Governing Body Chairman of Loyola College,
St. Mary's Residence, P.Box No.6,
Dindingul 624 001.
3. The University of Madras,
Rep. By its Registrar,
University Centenary Building,
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.N.MANJULA, J.
jrs
and
06.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
