Madras High Court
Dr.R.Agila vs The Registrar on 21 November, 2023
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
Writ Appeal No.838 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 21.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
Writ Appeal No.838 of 2020
and C.M.P.No.10633 of 2020
Dr.R.Agila,
Professor – Agricultural Extension ... Appellant
Vs
1. The Registrar,
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University,
Coimbatore.
2. The Professor and Head,
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University,
Rice Research Station,
Tirur, Thiruvallur District.
3. The Chairman,
Fact Finding Committee (FFC),
Programme Co-ordinator,
Krishi Vigyan Kendra,
Tirur, Thriuvallur District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set
aside the order dated 22.07.2020 made in W.P.No.9585 of 2020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1/11
Writ Appeal No.838 of 2020
For Appellants : Mr.Row and Reddy
For Respondents : Mr.Vijay Mehanath
Standing Counsel
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR,J.)
This intra-court appeal has been directed against the order passed
by the Writ Court dated 22.07.2020 made in W.P.No.9585 of 2020.
2. Before the Writ Court, the appellant moved the said writ petition
seeking for a prayer to dissolve the fact finding committee appointed by
the respondent/institution to go into the complaint given by the
petitioner/appellant with regard to the alleged theft of certain articles or
belongings of the petitioner/appellant from the almyrah, which was
maintained by her along with yet another teaching faculty in the institute,
where she was working.
3. The learned Judge, who heard the writ petition, had dismissed
the said writ petition by giving a finding that it was clearly a motivated
complaint given by the petitioner/appellant and this finding had been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
given by the learned Judge of the Writ Court at the very admission stage
itself without giving notice to the respondent/University.
3. Aggrieved over the said order passed by the Writ Court, this
appeal has been directed.
4. Mr.N.G.R.Prasad and Govardhanan of M/s.Row and Reddy,
learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that, when the
appellant had made a complaint to her immediate superior about the theft
of her personal belongings on 28.05.2020 from the almyrah that was
maintained by her in the office premises, that action amounts to an
alleged theft, therefore, it should have been referred to the concerned
Police as it is a cognizable offence and accordingly, the concerned
jurisdictional police alone is empowered to enquire the matter and come
to a conclusion. However, without referring the matter to the Police for
enquiry, the respondent/University decided to appoint a fact finding
committee consisting of three faculties and such constitution itself is
without jurisdiction or taking the function of the Police as per the
procedure established under the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore,
challenging the appointment of the said fact finding committee the writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petition was moved, however, the same was not considered in proper
perspective by the learned Judge, who in fact swayed by the view
expressed by the learned Special Government Pleader, who claimed to
have appeared for the University and accordingly, a cryptic conclusion
has been arrived at by the Writ Court and ultimately, the writ petition
was dismissed and the same is liable to be interfered with, he contended.
5. However, on the other hand, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the respondent/University, on instructions, would submit
that prior to the alleged date of the theft i.e., 28.05.2020, on 18.05.2020
and 19.05.2020, the appellant/writ petitioner came to the office and
thereafter, she did not attend the office and there had been a continuous
absence on the part of the appellant/writ petitioner and there was a
complaint of some of the staffs attached with the appellant/writ petitioner
that she scolded her co-staffs and made serious allegations against the
appellant/writ petitioner, a complaint to that effect had been given to the
authorities of the University and therefore, the University thought of
enquiring both matters i.e., the complaint given by the co-staff against
the appellant as well as the complaint given by the appellant for the
alleged theft in order to prima facie find out the truth and accordingly,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the fact finding committee was instituted and appointed, for which, the
University is empowered to, he contended.
6. The learned Standing Counsel would further submit that this
aspect having been considered by the learned Judge, who has come to a
right conclusion that such kind of constitution of the fact finding
committee is possible to the authority of the University, therefore, it
cannot be interfered with and moreover, the further finding that has been
given by the learned Judge that in order to overcome the complaint given
by the co-staff against the appellant/writ petitioner she had come forward
to give this complaint of alleged theft, therefore it was clearly a
motivated one, this was also the finding given by the learned Judge of-
course correctly. Therefore, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for
the respondent/institution would submit that the said judgment of the
learned single Judge does not require any interference at the hands of the
Division Bench, he contended.
7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions made by
learned counsel appearing for both sides and have perused the materials
placed before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. Insofar as the present lis is concerned, we need not go into the
complaint if any or allegation if any had been made against the writ
petitioner/appellant by any of the staff or co-staff of the
University/institution. As in respect of those complaints it is always open
to the University Authorities to take the complaint and based on which,
whatever necessary action i.e., Disciplinary action can very well be taken
in accordance with the relevant service regulations. However, insofar as
the complaint that has been given by the writ petitioner/appellant about
the alleged theft of her personal belongings, which alleged to have been
stolen from the Almyrah placed in the office i.e., institute maintained by
or handled by the appellant/writ petitioner is concerned, it is a serious
allegation of theft. Therefore, such an allegation should have been
referred only to the concerned jurisdictional police for investigation and
to allow the police to reach their logical conclusion after completing the
investigation.
9. However, the respondent/University has not chosen to forward
such complaint given by the appellant/writ petitioner to the concerned
jurisdictional police, for which no plausible reason has been given before
us.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. Even we have given one more chance to produce the report, if
any filed by the fact finding committee, only a short report not a final
report or a detailed report filed by the fact finding committee has been
placed before this Court, where the fact finding committee inter alia has
stated that there is a possibility of misplacing the laptop and not missing
from the office premises.
11. This kind of suggestion or conclusion cannot be arrived at by
the fact finding committee because, if there is an allegation of theft has
been made, it is a serious allegation, which should have been enquired
only by the jurisdictional police as it is one of the offences punishable
under the provisions of IPC. Therefore, the investigation has to be
necessarily conducted by the jurisdictional police as per the procedure
contemplated under the Criminal Procedure Code.
12. When that being so, such a job, which is otherwise be
undertaken by the jurisdictional police cannot be taken at the hands of
the fact finding committee and based on any suggestion or conclusion
that has been arrived at by the fact finding committee, a conclusion or
quietus of the issue cannot be given.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13. A quietus can be given to the issue only by the jurisdictional
police, after thorough investigation they may either find the culprits and
file a charge sheet or even they may come to a conclusion that it is a
mistake of fact, whatever be that conclusion that is going to be arrived at
by the jurisdictional police that must be taken only after the full-fledged
investigation to be conducted by them in the manner know to law.
14. Therefore, without giving any chance to the police and without
making any reference of this complaint to the police, the
respondent/University cannot withhold the same by concluding it taking
into account of the report if any filed by the fact finding committee.
Therefore, we are of the view that the said approach of the learned Judge
in rejecting the plea raised by the writ petitioner/appellant in the writ
petition is totally misconceived and untenable.
15. The afore-stated discussions and aspects have not been
considered in proper perspective by the learned Judge in the impugned
judgment, therefore, we are inclined to interfere with the said judgment,
which is impugned herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16. Resultantly, the following orders are passed in this writ appeal:
That the impugned judgment is set aside. As a sequel, there shall
be a direction to the respondent/institute to refer the complaint
given by the appellant/writ petitioner on 28.05.2020 on the alleged
theft of her personal belongings at the office premises, to the
concerned jurisdictional police within a period of one week from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
On receipt of such complaint, the jurisdiction police shall enquire
the matter, investigate the same and come to a conclusion based on
the evidences to be collected by the police.
Insofar as the other allegations that has been made against the writ
petitioner/appellant is concerned, it is open to the
respondent/institute to look into the matter, where if necessity
arises they can even initiate disciplinary proceedings against the
petitioner/writ appellant and if any such proceedings is initiated, it
is needless to mention that the procedure to be followed in taking
any disciplinary proceedings should be strictly followed by giving
an opportunity to the petitioner/appellant in all respects.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
With these observations and directions, this writ appeal is allowed
to the term indicated above. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition
is closed.
(R.S.K.,J.) (G.A.M., J.)
21.11.2023
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
mp
To
1. The Registrar,
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University,
Coimbatore.
2. The Professor and Head,
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University,
Rice Research Station,
Tirur, Thiruvallur District.
3. The Chairman,
Fact Finding Committee (FFC),
Programme Co-ordinator,
Krishi Vigyan Kendra,
Tirur, Thriuvallur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
mp
21.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
