Madras High Court
Dr.Sasikantha Dash vs The Secretary To Government on 19 February, 2025
Author: Anita Sumanth
Bench: Anita Sumanth
2025:MHC:443
W.A.No.1190 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 31.01.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 19.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.A.No.1190 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.7517 of 2022
Dr.Sasikantha Dash
S/o.Prafulla Kumar Dash,
Registrar Cum Chief Vigilance Officer (former),
Pondicherry University,
Puducherry - 605 014.
Presently Principal,
Tagore Govt. Arts and Science
College Lawspet,
Puducherry - 605 008. ... Appellant /
Petitioner
versus
1.The Secretary to Government,
Government of India,
Ministry of Human Resource Developmet (MHRD),
Department of Higher Education,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
2.The Secretary to Government,
Higher and Technical Education Department,
Chief Secretariat, Puducherry.
3.Dr.Gurumeetsingh,
1/43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1190 of 2022
The Vice Chancellor cum
Chairman of Executive Council,
Pondicherry University,
R.Venkatraman Nagar,
Kalapet, Puducherry - 605 014.
4.The Vice Chancellor cum
Chairman of Executive Council,
Pondicherry University,
R.Venkatraman Nagar,
Kalapet, Puducherry - 605 014.
5.The Deputy Registrar (Administration)
Pondicherry University,
R.Venkatraman Nagar,
Kalapet, Puducherry - 605 014.
6.Dr.B.Chitra,
Controller of Examintion (I/c),
Pondicherry University,
R.Venkatraman Nagar,
Kalapet, Puducherry - 605 014.
7.Pondicherry University SC/ST
Employees Welfare Associations,
Represented by its President,
Pondicherry University,
R.Venkatraman Nagar,
Kalapet, Puducherry - 605 014.
8.The Director,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Chennai. ... Respondents /
Respondents
2/43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1190 of 2022
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against
the order dated 17.02.2022 in W.P.No.5836 of 2019.
For Appellant : Mr.Vijay Narayan
Senior Counsel
for Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu
For Respondents : Mr.M.Ravi - R3 to R6
Mr.V.Ashok Kumar - R1
Central Government Standing Counsel
Not ready in notice regarding R2, R7 & R8
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.]
The appellant had preferred the intra-court appeal challenging the
common order dated 17.02.2022 in W.P.Nos.5836 of 2019 and 15341 of
2020.
2. The short facts to be noted in the appeal is that the Pondicherry
University through their recruitment notification dated 15.12.2017 had
invited applications for the post of Registrar, Finance Officer and Controller
of Examinations by way of direct recruitment or by deputation. The
appellant had applied, who on being successful, was called for interview and
ultimately selected by the selection committee, pursuant to which, the
appellant was appointed as the Registrar of Pondicherry University. His
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
tenure to the post of Registrar was for a period of 5 years. He was relieved
from Tagore Government Arts & Science College by the Government of
Puducherry on 05.07.2018 and he had joined in the post of Registrar in the
Pondicherry University. While he was serving as Registrar, the appellant
received a mail on 20.02.2019 which informed that based on the decision of
the executive council meeting, he was relieved from the office of Registrar.
3. The appellant had challenged the decision of the executive
council in W.P.No.5836 of 2019 and while the appellant was reverted to his
parent department, a fresh notification was issued dated 08.09.2020
pertaining to the post of Registrar alone which was challenged in
W.P.No.15341 of 2020 and the writ court by a common order dated
17.02.2022 had dismissed the challenge made to the new recruitment
notification, however, partially allowed the other writ petition wherein the
order in respect of reversion was upheld, however, the remarks made which
had resulted in a stigma alone was directed to be expunged from the service
records. Aggrieved by the decision of the writ court in upholding the
decision of the executive council, the writ petitioner is on appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.Stalin
Abhimanyu appearing for the appellant argued that the appellant had been
originally appointed as Assistant Professor by the UPSC and was later
appointed in the Union Territory of Puducherry and was serving as Principal
in the Tagore Government Arts and Science College, Puducherry.
5. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the recruitment
notification issued by the Pondicherry University called for both direct
recruitment and by deputation and from all the records available, it is certain
that the appellant was appointed as Registrar by deputation. It is his further
contention that when the selection and appointment is by way of deputation,
the question of executing an agreement does not arise and therefore the stand
taken by the University that since the agreement has not been executed, the
appellant had not accepted the terms of appointment is baseless.
6. It is his further contention that when even as per the University
stand, the action is sought to be justified by relying on the statute of the
University, then as per Statute 27 of the Schedule to the Statutes of the
University, removal of an employee for any other reason shall be given 3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
months notice in writing. But in the instant case, the appellant was not
issued with any notice and therefore the impugned decision of the executive
council is bad both for violation of statute and also due to violation of
principles of natural justice.
7. Learned Senior Counsel further by referring to the impugned
decision of the executive council submitted that the appellant was never
informed or put on notice about the unsatisfactory performance or the
dissatisfaction at any point of time. He further contended that when the
appellant is in the services of the Union and has been appointed by the
University on deputation, the impugned action is in violation of Article 311
of the Constitution of India.
8. He further contended that when the learned Judge had come to
the conclusion that entries made in the decision of the executive council is a
stigma and had directed the same to be expunged from the service records,
then in such circumstances there was no basis for passing the impugned
order and therefore the order of the learned Judge in upholding the reversion
made cannot be sustained.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. By relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel v. Union of India reported in (2012) 7
SCC 757, he distinguished the difference between transfer on deputation and
appointment on deputation and in the instant case, since it is an appointment
on deputation he has an indefeasible right to be treated fairly and equally. He
made reliance to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Dev Dutt v. Union of India reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725 to the proposition
that any adverse entry or remark as against the employee must be
communicated to him and an opportunity of hearing must be given.
10. Reliance was also made to the decision in Dipti Prakash
Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences
reported in (1999) 3 SCC 60 for the proposition that when an order of
termination passed causes a stigma then absolutely an enquiry is necessary
before passing the same. He has also made reliance to the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Venugopal v. Union of India
reported in (2008) 5 SCC 1 for the proposition that the tenure of
appointment cannot be curtailed disadvantageous to the employee. Since the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
impugned order cannot be sustained for these reasons, he sought for
interference of this Court.
11. Mr.M.Ravi, learned counsel for Pondicherry University argued
that even though the application was called for both by the direct recruitment
and by deputation, the appellant had consciously applied only under the
direct appointment. By pointing out the application submitted by the
appellant in page 7, he submitted that column in respect of the endorsement
of the present employer with office seal and date is vacant and therefore
since the appellant had not applied under deputation, he has not obtained the
endorsement from the parent employer.
12. It is his further contention that when once the appointment is
through direct recruitment, then it was mandatory under Section 31(1) of the
Pondicherry University Act, 1985 that every employee shall be appointed
under a written contract which shall be lodged with the university and the
copy of which shall be furnished to the employee concerned. In view of the
same, the very appointment order dated 02.07.2018 reads that he shall
execute an agreement as per the administrative ordinances of Pondicherry
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
University for the contract of service of offices and along with the order, the
contract form has also been enclosed and the appellant had not signed this
contract and executed the Memorandum of Agreement which alone will
enable the appellant for a 3 months notice period.
13. It is his further contention that since the services of the
appellant were found not satisfactory, and the council decided to terminate
the services, the appellant made a voluntary request through representation
dated 20.02.2019 requesting to relieve him from the post of Registrar to
enable him to join back in his parent department and once he had
consciously requested the University to relieve him of the services, the
subsequent proceedings initiated by the appellant challenging the reversion
to his parent department cannot be sustained. Learned counsel further
contended that while taking note of the provisions and the materials
available, the learned Judge had rightly come to the conclusion that the
termination of the service will not amount to a penalty and had upheld the
reversion of the petitioner which is perfectly justified and further even the
appellant had been given the relief by the learned Judge by directing that the
references made in the decision of the executive council to be removed from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the service records of the petitioner as it may result in a stigma and as such
no further interference is required at the hands of this Division Bench and
sought for dismissal of the appeal.
14. Heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available
on record.
15. The entire controversy revolves around the nature of
appointment of the appellant and the manner in which he had been relieved
from the services of the University.
16. It is not in dispute that the appellant was initially appointed as
Lecturer in the year 1999 in Donyi Polo Government College at Arunachal
Pradesh. After his transfer to the College in Bomdila, he was appointed as an
Assistant Professor in Avvaiyar Government College for Women through
UPSC and served for a period from 2006 to July 2010 and thereafter he was
appointed as Principal in two of the Colleges in the Union territory of
Puducherry and finally was serving in Tagore Government Arts and Science
College, Puducherry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
17. While the appellant was serving as the Principal in the
Government College of the Union Territory of Puducherry, the Pondicherry
University had issued a recruitment notification vide RC/2017/29 dated
04.10.2017 to fill up the posts of Registrar, Finance Officer and Controller of
Examinations. Again a further advertisement was issued on 15.12.2017 for
which the appellant had responded and submitted his application on
31.12.2017 applying for the post of Registrar. The appellant was short listed
and called for interview and had appeared before the selection committee
along with 68 others in which the appellant came out successful and was
recommended by the selection committee. The recommendation of the
selection committee was placed before the executive council of the
Pondicherry University and pursuant to the resolution dated 02.07.2018, the
appellant was selected as the Registrar of Pondicherry University.
18. When it is the contention of the University that it was only a
direct recruitment and not an appointment by deputation, it becomes
essential to decide on the nature of appointment made. It is true that the
notification has been issued calling for both direct recruitment and by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
deputation and the appellant had also submitted an application for direct
recruitment and he has not obtained any endorsement from the present
employer. But however still the University and also the employer /
Puducherry Government seems to have decided to appoint the appellant on
deputation.
19. For easy reference, the appointment order dated 02.07.2018 is
extracted hereunder:-
“PU/ESTT/NT10/2017-18/56 Date: 02.07.2018
OFFICE ORDER No.61
Sub: PU-Estt-Offer of appointment to the post of Registrar -
Reg
Ref: (1) Advertisement dated 4.10.17, 15.12.17 and 02.01.18
(2) His application dated 31.10.2017
(3) Selection Committee minutes dated 29.06.2018
and 30.06.2018
(4) Executive Council Resolution No.2018.131.15,
dated 02.07.2018
Consequent upon the approval by the Executive Council vide
Resolution fourth cited based on the recommendations of the
Selection Committee third cited above Dr.Sasi Kanta Dash,
Principal, Tagore Arts College, Puducherry is appointed as
Registrar, Pondicherry University, for a period of five years from the
date of joining.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
He is eligible to draw the pay of Rs.1,44,200/- (Level 14) and
other allowances as prescribed in the University rules.
He is advised to report for duty at the earliest along with
requisite documents connected with his relieving of service from
parent department.
He shall execute an agreement as per the Administrative
Ordinances of Pondicherry University for Contract of Services for
Officers.
His appointment will be governed by the Rules and
Regulations of this University and other norms stipulated by the
UGC/MHRD from time to time.”
20. As per the order, the appellant is appointed as Registrar,
Pondicherry University for a period of 5 years from the date of joining and
he has been advised to report for duty at the earliest along with the requisite
documents connected with his relieving of service from the office of the
parent department.
21. Further the Government of Puducherry had issued
G.O.(Ms.)No.25 Higher & Technical Education dated 05.07.2018
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
sanctioning the deputation of the appellant from the post of Principal, Tagore
Government Arts and Science Department, Puducherry to assume the post of
Registrar in Pondicherry University for a period of 5 years. It also reads that
terms and conditions of the deputation will be issued by the University and
he had been relieved from the services of Government.
22. The abovesaid Government Order reads as follows:-
“G.O.Ms.No.25 Dated: 05.07.2018
READ: 1.Letter No.PU/ESTT/NT10/2017-18/56, dated 02.07.2018
of
the Registrar in-charge, Pondicherry University,
Puducherry.
2.I.D.Note No.5032/DHTE/Estt/E1/2018/92, dated
04.07.2018 of the Director of Higher & Technical Education,
Puducherry.
ORDER
The Lieutenant Governor, Puducherry is pleased to sanction
deputation of Dr.Sasi Kanta Dash, Principal, Tagore Government
Arts & Science College, Puducherry to assume the post of Registrar,
Pondicherry University, Puducherry, for a period of 5 years.
2. Dr.Sasi Kanta Dash is relieved from this Administration on
the forenoon of 05.07.2018, with instructions to report for duty
before the Vice-Chancellor, Pondicherry University, Puducherry.
3. The terms and conditions of his deputation will be issued
by Pondicherry University, Puducherry.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
23. In view of the appointment order and also sanctioning of
deputation and relieving from the parent department, it would clearly reveal
that though the appellant had submitted his application for direct recruitment
to the post of Registrar, both the Government/ the parent department and
also the Pondicherry University had treated and appointed the appellant as
the Registrar of the University only by direct recruitment on deputation.
24. Further after the appellant was relieved from the services of
Principal, Tagore Government Arts and Science College on deputation and
had reported and joined duty as Registrar in the Pondicherry University on
05.07.2018, the Pondicherry University has issued Office Orders dated
16.07.2018 and fixed his pay as he has assumed the charge as Registrar of
University on deputation basis. The proceedings of the University dated
16.07.2018 reads as follows:-
“PU/ESTT/NT10/2017-2018/67 Date: 16.07.2018
OFFICE ORDER No.65
Sub: PU-ESTT - Appointment of Dr.Sasi Kanta Dash as
Registrar of this University w.e.f. 05.07.2018 A.N.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
on deputation basis-Orders issued -Reg.
Ref: 1) Office Order No.61, dated 02.07.2018
2) Relieving Order G.O.Ms.No.25 dated 05.07.2018 of
Govt. of Puducherry
3) His Joining Report dated 05.07.2018
In pursuance of the ref. (1) cited Dr.Sasi Kanta Dash who is
appointed as Registrar of this University for a period of five years
has assumed the charge as Registrar of this University on
05.07.2018 A.N. on deputation basis.
His pay in the post of Registrar is fixed at Rs.1,44,200/-
(Level 14) and other allowances as prescribed in the University
rules.
However, he may exercise his option for fixation of pay within
a month from the date of receipt of this order.
His appointment in this University will be governed by the
rules & regulations of this University, the terms and conditions of
deputation as provided in the GOI guidelines and other norms
stipulated by the UGC.
//BY ORDER//
DEPUTY REGISTRAR (ADMN.)”
25. In view of all these proceedings, we have no hesitation in
coming to the conclusion that the appointment of the appellant as Registrar
in the Pondicherry University is an appointment by deputation.
26. While the appellant was serving as the Registrar in the
University, an e-mail was sent by the executive council on 20.02.2019 at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.50 p.m. addressed to all the members of the executive council informing
that 134th emergent meeting of the executive council will be held on the
same day on 20.02.2019 at 3.30p.m. to discuss some very urgent
administrative matters of the University.
27. Pursuant to which the appellant had received an e-mail on the
same day at 6.20 p.m. containing the relieving order dated 20.02.2019. As
per the relieving order, in view of the decision of the executive council, the
appellant who is on deputation from Tagore Government Arts and Science
College is relieved from the post of Registrar as his services are no longer
required and he is repatriated to his parent department.
28. The relieving order dated 20.02.2019 is extracted hereunder:-
“PU/Estt/NT10/2019/362 20th February 2019
OFFICE ORDER
Sub :- PU - Relieving of Dr.Sasi Kanta Dash from the post of
Registrar, Pondicherry University (on deputation) and his
repatriation to his parent department with effect from Afternoon -
Order Issued- Reg.
Ref: 1. Dr.Sasi Kanta Dash application dated 31.10.2014
for the post of Registrar
2. Executive Council Resolution No 2018.131.15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
dated 02.07.2018.
3. Offer of Appointment dated 02.07.2018 to
Dr.Sasi Kanta Dash.
4. Relieving Order – G.O.MS. No.25 dated 05.07.2018
of Govt of Puducherry.
5. Joining Report dated 05.07.2018
6. Office Order No.65 dated 16.07.2018
7. Executive Council Resolution No. 2019.134.01
dt. 20.2.2019.
In accordance with the decision of the Executive Council,
Dr.Sasi Kanta Dash, Registrar, Pondicherry University, who is on
deputation from Tagore Government Arts & Science College, Govt.
of Puducherry (Directorate of Higher & Technical Education) is
now relieved from the post of Registrar, Pondicherry University, as
his services are no longer required. His relief from Pondicherry
University will be with immediate effect i.e. from the afternoon of
20th February 2019 and he is repatriated to Govt. of Puducherry
(Directorate of Higher & Technical Education) with instructions to
report to his parent Department.
He shall handover all records and such other articles
belonging to the University to the Assistant Registrar, Registrar's
Secretariat.
If he has any due(s) outstanding in the University, the same
will be intimated to his parent department to recover it from his
salary to be drawn in his parent department.
/By Order/
(P. Muralidassan)
Deputy Registrar (Admn.)”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
29. Further, the above order has been passed in view of the decision
taken in the emergent council meeting and the relevant portion is extracted
hereunder:-
“The Directorate of Higher & Technical Education, vide
GO.Ms.No.25 dated 05.07.18 sanctioned the deputation of Dr.Sasi
Kanta Dash, Principal, Tagore Govt. Arts & Science College, Govt.
Of Puducherry (Directorate of Higher & Technical Education) for a
period of 5 years. He joined Pondicherry University on the
afternoon of 05.07.18. However, he has not signed the Contract
Form of Service till date.
During the last 8 months, the performance of Dr.Sasi Kanta Dash is
far below satisfaction despite various requests, instructions and
reminders in person. It is found that many administrative matters,
viz. review of Recruitment Rules, conduct of Departmental
Promotion Committee, Modified Assured Career Promotion Scheme,
Career Advancement Scheme, etc, had not taken place, leading to
resentment and dissatisfaction among the employees, thereby
adversely affecting the efficiency of the organization and his
continuance further in the University will not be in the public
interest. Letters/Queries from MHRD/UGC etc. requiring urgent
responses have also not been attended to in time. Therefore, the
continuance of Dr.Sasi Kanta Dash in the capacity of Registrar,
Pondicherry University shall impede the progress of the institution
in all related areas and shall cause dissatisfaction among all the
stakeholders.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
This matter is placed before the executive council for consideration
and appropriate decision.”
30. A perusal of the resolution reads that the appellant had not
signed the contract form in the last 8 months and his performance is far
below satisfaction despite various requests, instructions and reminders in
person. It also reads that several administrative matters had not taken place
leading to resentment and disqualification which affects the efficiency of the
organisation and further letters and queries seeking urgent responses had
also not been attended in time. Apart from this the learned counsel for the
University in his submissions had also stated that the appellant by letter
dated 20.02.2019 had voluntary requested to relieve him from the services.
31. The order dated 20.02.2019 which is extracted above has 7
references and after referring to the office order no.65 dated 16.07.2018 in
reference 6 fixing the pay of the appellant, the executive council resolution
is found in reference 7. If at all there had been any letters, instructions or
reminders issued to the appellant in the period of 8 months as referred to in
the resolution and further letters and queries which were sent went
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
unresponded and further had there been any letter dated 20.02.2019 of the
appellant requesting to relieve him from the services, the same would have
been found place in the reference contained in the order.
32. The absence of any such communication or the reference of any
of this correspondence / letters / notices / or remarks would only go to show
that pursuant to the appellant joining in the University as Registrar, no
adverse remarks or any letter or intimation pointing out his deficiency or his
attention was issued at any point of time and all of a sudden a executive
council meeting was urgently called for on 20.02.2019 by sending an e-mail
at 2.50p.m.for the meeting at 3.30p.m. A decision had been taken to relieve
the appellant from the post of Registrar and repatriate to his parent
department. In fact the order dated 20.02.2019 only refers that his services
are no longer required but the resolution of the executive council points out
several deficiencies in the service of the appellant.
33. In this regard, it is useful to refer to the relevant provisions of
Pondicherry University Act, 1985 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] with
respect to the post of Registrar. As per Section 11(7) of the Act, the post of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Registrar comes within the officers of the University and as per Section 16,
the Registrar shall be appointed in such manner as may be prescribed by the
Statutes and he shall have the power to enter into agreements, sign
documents on behalf of the University and exercise such other powers as
prescribed by the Statutes.
34. As per the Statutes of the University contained in the Schedule,
Statute 4 prescribes that the Registrar shall be a whole-time salaried officer
of the University and emoluments and other terms and conditions of service
of the Registrar shall be such as may be prescribed by the Ordinances.
35. As per Statute 19 in the Schedule to the Act, the Selection
Committee for making recommendation to the executive council for
appointment of the post of Registrar and such other posts has been set out
and Note 3 contained in the Statute 19 reads as follows:-
“NOTE 3 : The Selection Committee shall recommend appointment
to the post of Registrar on tenure basis for a period of five years and
his tenure may be renewed for similar terms by the Executive
Council on the recommendations of the Vice Chancellor:
Provided that Officers of All India Services and
Central Services may be appointed on deputation to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the post of Registrar by the Executive Council on the
recommendations of the Vice-Chancellor on such
terms and conditions as may be stipulated by the
Government of India.”
36. The writ court had referred to the definition contained in
Section 2(1) of the Act which defines employee as any person appointed by
the University including teachers and other staff of the University. Noting
Section 11, the learned Judge had concluded that the post of Registrar will
not come under the definition of employee as he is an officer of the
University.
37. The other bone of contention is that the Statute 27 in the
Schedule to the Act will not be applicable to the appellant as he has not
executed agreement as forwarded to him along with the appointment order.
Learned single Judge had also held that this statute will not be applicable as
the appellant is not an employee in view of the above referred provision.
Statute 27 is extracted hereunder:-
“27 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the terms of his
contract of service or of his appointment, an employee,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
other than a teacher or a member of the academic
staff, may be removed by the authority which is
competent to appoint the employee.
(a) if he is of unsound mind or is a deaf-mute of suffers
from contagious leprosy;
(b) if he is an undischarged insolvent;
(c) if he has been convicted by a court of law of any
offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in
respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than six
months;
(d) if he is otherwise guilty of misconduct;
Provided that no employee shall be removed from
his office unless a resolution to that effect is passed
by the Executive Council by a majority of two-thirds
of its members present and voting.
(2) No employee shall be removed under clause (1) until he has
been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause
against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him.
(3) Where the removal of such employee is for a reason other
than that specified in sub-clause (c) or sub-clause (b), of
Clause (1) he shall be given three months' notice in writing
or paid three months salary in lieu of such notice.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Statutes, an
employee not being a teacher or a member of the academic
staff, shall be entitled to resign:-
(i) If he is a permanent employee, only after giving three
months' notice in writing to the appointing authority or
paying to the University three months' salary in lieu
thereof:
(ii) If he is not a permanent employee, only after giving one-
month's notice in writing to the appointing authority or
paying to the University one month's salary in lieu thereof:
Provided that such resignation shall take effect from the
date on which the resignation is accepted by the appointing
authority.”
38. The manner of removal from service of the employee is set out
in Statute 27 as extracted above and as per Clause 2, no employee shall be
removed under Clause 1 until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of
showing cause against the proposed action and further as per Clause 3, if
reason for such removal is other than those specified under Clause 1, then he
shall be given 3 months notice in writing or paid 3 months salary in lieu of
such notice. The Statute makes it clear that an action of removal of an
employee can be resorted to only by complying with the Statute.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
39. Though as per Section 11 of the Act the post of Registrar is
designated as an officer of the University, still the service conditions of the
post of Registrar are based on the ordinances issued under the provisions of
the Act.
40. In this regard, it is useful to refer to the Ordinances Governing
Administrative Matters of the Pondicherry University (hereinafter referred
as “The Administrative Ordinances”) wherein Chapter 1 deals with
Ordinance governing the terms and conditions of service of all employees of
the University other than teachers. As per Rule 3(v) in Part II of the said
Ordinance, employee (non-teaching) means a University employee other
than teaching staff. Rule 4(1)(A) prescribes the emoluments, terms and
conditions of the service of the post of Registrar. Rule 4(1)(A) reads as
follows:-
1. The Registrar shall be a whole-time salaried officer of the
University and he/she shall receive pay besides allowances as
admissible to the University staff, in the scale of pay of
Rs.16400-450-20900-500-22400 or as revised from time to
time by the Executive Council. His/her appointment shall be
for a term of five years and it may be renewed for similar
terms.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Provided that in the event of the Office of the Registrar being
filled by obtaining the services of a person on deputation /
absorption, the salary and other services conditions shall be
such as may be admissible to him according to the terms and
conditions finalized in consultation with the parent
Organisation.
2. Registrar shall perform his/her functions and duties as laid
down in the Statutes and Ordinances.
3. Registrar shall be provided with unfurnished University
accommodation for which he/she shall pay rent at the usual
rate.
4. Other conditions of service of the Registrar shall be as
provided in the "Contract of Service of Officers" (enclosed)
and approved by the Executive Council, subject to such other
additional conditions as may be specified by the Executive
Council.
5. The contract of service of the Registrar shall be signed, on
behalf of the University, by the Officer performing the duties
of the Registrar at that time or by the Finance Officer of the
University.”
41. In view of the above Rule, the Registrar is a whole time salaried
officer of the University and also the form of contract of service has also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
been annexed therein, which is the form that was forwarded to the appellant
at the time of issuance of the appointment order. Further Rule 9 in Part III of
the Chapter 1 Ordinance deals with the termination of service, wherein as
per sub-rule 2, the services of a permanent employee may be terminated by
the Vice-Chancellor / Executive Council at any time by a notice of three
months or on payment of pay and allowances drawn by him immediately
before the termination of his service for such period as the notice falls short
of three months, or without notice on payment of three months pay plus
allowances.
42. As per the Chapter 3 Ordinance governing the Control and
Appeal of the Employees of the University, “employee” is defined under
Rule 2(c) which reads as follows:-
“2 (c). "Employee" means any person in the service of the
University who is a member of a cadre on one of the categories of
posts created under the University and includes any such person on
foreign service or whose services are temporarily placed at the
disposal of another University or any other authority by the
University and also any person in the service of a State Government
or Central Government or a local or other authority or any other
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
autonomous body whose services are temporarily placed at the
disposal of the University.)”
43. As per Rule 2(c), “employee” means any person in the service
of a State Government or Central Government or local or other authority or
any other autonomous body whose services are temporarily placed at the
disposal of the University and also any person in the service of the
University who is a member of a cadre in one of the categories of posts
created under the University.
44. Here in the instant case, the Registrar is a category of post
created under the services of the University and the appellant who is under
the service of the Central Government has been temporarily placed on
deputation at the disposal of the University and in view of the same, the
appellant being a Registrar of the University would come within the
definition of the employee under Rule 2(c).
45. It is also relevant to note Rule 8 of the Chapter 3 Ordinance
governing the control and appeal of the employees of the University which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
prescribes the authority to initiate proceedings. Rule 8 is extracted
hereunder:-
“8. (1) The Executive Council or any other authority
empowered by it by general or special order may -
(a) institute disciplinary proceedings against any
employee;
(b) direct a disciplinary authority to institute
disciplinary proceedings against any employee
on whom that disciplinary authority is
competent to impose under these rules any of
the penalties specified in rule 6.
(2) A disciplinary authority competent under these rules to
impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to
(iv) of rule 6 may institute disciplinary proceedings
against any employee for the imposition of any of the
penalities specified in clause (v) to (ix) of rule 6
notwithstanding that such disciplinary authority
is not competent under those rules to impose any of the latter
penalties.”
46. In view of Rule 8, the Executive Council or any other authority
empowered by it can institute disciplinary proceedings against any employee
to impose any of the penalties contained under Rule 6 including removal
from service and dismissal from service as per sub-rules (viii) and (ix).
Relevant portion of Rule 6 is extracted hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“6. The followng penalties may for good and sufficient
reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on an
employee namely:
...
Major penalties:
(viii) Removal from service
(ix) Dismissal from service
Explanation: The following shall not amount to a penaty
within the meaning of this rule, namely:
...
(iv) Reversion of an employee officiating in a higher grade or
post to a lower grade or post, on the ground that the
employee is considered to be unsuitable for such higher
grade or post or on any administrative ground unconnected
with the conduct;
(v) Replacement of the services of an employee, whose
services has been borroed from outside authority at the
disposal of such authority.
...
(vii) Termination of the services -
...
(c) of an employee employed under an agreement, in
accordance with the terms of such agreement."
47. Further the procedure for imposing penalty is set out under
Rule 9. As per the explanations (iv) and (v) set out under Rule 6, reversion
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of an employee officiating in a higher grade or post to a lower grade or post
on the ground that the employee is considered to be unsuitable for such
higher grade or post or on any administrative ground unconnected with the
conduct as well as the replacement of the services of an employee, whose
services had been borrowed from outside authority, at the disposal of such
authority are not considered as penalties within the meaning of Rule 6.
48. The writ court had dismissed the writ petition insofar as the
reversion on the ground that it is not a penalty as contained under the
Chapter 3 Ordinance governing the Control and Appeal of the Employees of
the University.
49. In our considered opinion, when the appellant was appointed to
the post of Registrar by appointment through deputation and he has been
relieved from the services of the post of Registrar citing certain lapses and
his unsatisfactory performance, then it necessarily falls under the category of
penalty in either one of the clauses contained in Sub-rule (viii) or (ix) of
Rule 6 of the abovementioned Ordinance. In this regard, we are not in
agreement with the finding of the learned Judge that the reversion of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appellant to the parent department would not fall under Rule 6 for penalty
since the University is entitled to revert, as per the agreements to be entered
into with the concerned individuals. As it is a case of appointment by
deputation, it cannot be construed as a mere transfer on deputation.
50. Further, when the University had allowed the appellant to join
the post and serve for nearly 9 months, at this stage, there cannot be any
issue raised in respect of non-execution of agreement. When it could have
been entered into even at a later stage, but however, neither party considered
it necessary all along. When the removal of employee is governed by the
procedures contemplated under Rule 9, termination of service under
Explanation (vii) (c) to Rule 6 is not applicable when admittedly no
agreement has been entered into. Even if executed, then 3 months notice
becomes mandatory. As such, in either case the order of reversion is bad and
suffers from arbitrariness and lack of providing opportunity.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
51. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer the decision relied on by
the appellant in the case of Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel v. Union of India
reported in (2012) 7 SCC 757 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had dealt
with the difference in respect of appointment on deputation and transfer on
deputation. It is held that a person who applies for appointment on
deputation has an indefeasible right to be treated fairly and equally and once
such person is selected and offered with the letter of appointment on
deputation, the same cannot be cancelled except on the ground of non-
suitability or unsatisfactory work. Relevant portion of the said judgment is
extracted hereunder:-
“14. However, the aforesaid principle cannot be made
applicable in the matter of appointment (recruitment) on deputation.
In such case, for appointment on deputation in the services of the
State or organisation or State within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution of India, the provisions of Article 14 and Article 16 are
to be followed. No person can be discriminated nor is it open to the
appointing authority to act arbitrarily or to pass any order in
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A person who
applies for appointment on deputation has an indefeasible right to
be treated fairly and equally and once such person is selected and
offered with the letter of appointment on deputation, the same
cannot be cancelled except on the ground of non-suitability or
unsatisfactory work.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
15. The present case is not a case of transfer on deputation. It
is a case of appointment on deputation for which advertisement was
issued and after due selection, the offer of appointment was issued
in favour of the appellant. In such circumstances, it was not open for
the respondent to argue that the appellant has no right to claim
deputation and the respondent cannot refuse to accept the joining of
most eligible selected candidate except on ground of unsuitability or
unsatisfactory performance.”
52. In the instant case also, the appellant being found meritorious
and suitable by the Selection Committee in open competition, had been
selected and appointed through deputation for a period of 5 years and the
appellant has an indefeasible right to be treated fairly. Even though the letter
of appointment on deputation could be cancelled on the ground of
unsuitability or unsatisfactory work, still the University is bound to treat the
appellant fairly by providing reasonable opportunity and conduct the
proceedings in a fair manner to arrive at a conclusion.
53. As referred earlier, no notices have been issued nor was the
appellant put on notice affording an opportunity to putforth his explanation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and in such circumstances, the impugned decision fails to muster the test of
fairness and reasonableness.
54. Further no adverse remarks or any lacunae on the part of the
appellant was ever communicated to the appellant and admittedly no such
proceedings or letters sent to the appellant is referred to in the impugned
order and the manner in which an urgent meeting was called for only at
2.30p.m. and the meeting was conducted at 3.30 p.m. in which all of a
sudden a decision was taken to relieve the appellant, which contained
several adverse remarks which was not addressed or communicated to the
appellant at any point of time.
55. In this regard, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Dev Dutt v. Union of India reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725 refers to
developing the principles of natural justice by holding that fairness and
transparency in public administration requires that all entries in ACR must
be communicated to the delinquent within a reasonable period so that he can
make a representation for its upgradation. In this, para 36 of the decision is
extracted hereunder:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“36. In the present case, we are developing the principles of
natural justice by holding that fairness and transparency in public
administration requires that all entries (whether poor, fair, average,
good or very good) in the annual confidential report of a public
servant, whether in civil, judicial, police or any other State service
(except the military), must be communicated to him within a
reasonable period so that he can make a representation for its
upgradation. This in our opinion is the correct legal position even
though there may be no rule/G.O. requiring communication of the
entry, or even if there is a rule/G.O. prohibiting it, because the
principle of non-arbitrariness in State action as envisaged by Article
14 of the Constitution in our opinion requires such communication.
Article 14 will override all rules or government orders.”
56. Further we are in agreement with the arguments raised by the
learned senior counsel for the appellant that when an order of termination is
passed causing a stigma, then mandatorily an enquiry has to be conducted
before passing the same. In this case, since the appellant had been selected
and appointed as Registrar by deputation and he is relieved from his services
and repatriated to the parent department, it would eventually mean to
terminate his services from the post of Registrar and when the order attaches
civil consequences more particularly a stigma on the career of the appellant
wherein several references are made in the resolution passed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
executive council, the decision arrived at without conducting a proper
enquiry more so without even putting the appellant on notice affording an
opportunity to explain, cannot be rectified and the order cannot be sustained
by simply directing the University to delete the adverse entries made in the
impugned resolution which alone will not be a remedy to the unjustified
action of the University.
57. Insofar as the other submissions made and the decisions relied
on by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the tenure cannot be
curtailed, as referred in the above decision itself, employer is entitled to
cancel the appointment in case of unsatisfactory performance and non
suitability. Now when the University had decided to relieve the appellant
from the services mainly on the ground of unsatisfactory work which is
revealed through the impugned resolution, the argument putforth that the
tenure of the period cannot be curtailed cannot be sustained. However, any
such decision taken to prematurely cancel the assignment must be in
accordance with the provisions contained in the Statute and following due
fair and reasonable process by complying with the principles of natural
justice.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
58. Further since the appellant is in the services of the Central
Government and his services are protected under Article 311 of the
Constitution, the impugned order whereby the appellant is relieved from the
service of Registrar tantamounting to termination without conducting a
proper enquiry and affording reasonable opportunity is violative of
provisions of the Constitution and stands vitiated.
59. Even as per the proceedings of the University, the appellant is
governed by the DoPT guidelines since he is in the services of the Union
presently on deputation and the guidelines mandate issuance of 3 months
notice before premature cancellation of the deputation or repatriation. In this
case, admittedly this procedure has not been followed.
60. In view of the above deliberations, we have no hesitation to
come to the conclusion that the impugned order relieving the appellant from
the services of Registrar of the University based on the resolution of the
executive council cannot be sustained for the aforesaid reasons. Now it is
brought to our notice that on repatriation, the appellant had been relieved
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
from the University and he had also joined in his parent department at
Tagore Government Arts and Science College, Pondicherry and further it is
also brought to the notice that a fresh recruitment notification has been
issued calling for applications to fill up the post of Registrar which goes to
show that till date the post of Registrar remains vacant. When we have come
to the categorical conclusion that the order relieving the appellant from the
post of Registrar is not justified, then the automatic corollary would be to
put back the appellant in the services of the University as Registrar and
allow the University to undertake the proceedings in accordance with law.
Since on repatriation the appellant had been working in the service of the
parent department, he will not be entitled for any backwages for this period.
61. It is made clear that it is for the University to decide as to
whether to allow the appellant to complete his tenure as per the original
order of appointment or to conduct proceedings in compliance with the
provisions of the Statute and in accordance with law, to take a fresh decision
in this regard.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
62. The Union Territory of Puducherry shall pass necessary orders
to give effect to this order by allowing the appellant to get relieved and
report before the University to resume his duties as Registrar.
63. The needful as indicated above to be done within a period of
four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
64. In view of the same, the order of the writ court is set aside and
the Writ Appeal stands allowed with the aforesaid directions. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
[A.S.M.J.,] [G.A.M.J.,]
19.02.2025
Speaking order
Index : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
sri
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Government of India,
Ministry of Human Resource Developmet (MHRD),
Department of Higher Education,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
2.The Secretary to Government,
Higher and Technical Education Department,
Chief Secretariat, Puducherry.
3.Dr.Gurumeetsingh,
The Vice Chancellor cum Chairman of Executive Council,
Pondicherry University,
R.Venkatraman Nagar, Kalapet, Puducherry - 605 014.
4.The Vice Chancellor cum Chairman of Executive Council,
Pondicherry University,
R.Venkatraman Nagar, Kalapet, Puducherry - 605 014.
5.The Deputy Registrar (Administration)
Pondicherry University,
R.Venkatraman Nagar, Kalapet, Puducherry - 605 014.
6.Dr.B.Chitra,
Controller of Examintion (I/c),
Pondicherry University,
R.Venkatraman Nagar, Kalapet, Puducherry - 605 014.
7.The President,
Pondicherry University SC/ST Employees Welfare Associations,
Pondicherry University,
R.Venkatraman Nagar, Kalapet, Puducherry - 605 014.
8.The Director,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Chennai.
Dr. ANITA SUMANTH, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AND
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
sri
Pre-Delivery Judgment made in
19.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
