1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:07.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.(MD)No.13861 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 Dr.S.Jayaram ...Petitioner Vs 1. The Government Of Tamil Nadu, Through its Secretary, Higher Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai. 2. The Director, Directorate of Collegiate Education, College Road,Chennai-600 006. 3. The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, (Additional Incharge), Madurai Region, Vaithiyanadhayyar Street, Shenoy Nagar,Madurai-20. 4. The Secretary cum Corerspondent, College Committee, Virudhunagar Hindu Nadars' Senthikumara Nadar College, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District. ...Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned communication dated 26.11.2011 on the file of the Respondent No.4 and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For Respondents : Mr.B.Pugalendhi Special Government Pleader for R.1 to R.3 *** O R D E R This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned communication dated 26.11.2011 on the file of the Respondent No.4 and quash the same as illegal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2. Heard Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.B.Pugalendhi, learned Special Government Pleader, who takes notice for the respondents. 3. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 4. The petitioner, Dr.S.Jayaram, who is working as the Head of the Department of Tamil in the fourth respondent Private Aided College, was issued with a show cause notice dated 14.10.2011, calling upon him to submit his explanation for not taking any action against the students, who were on boycott on 05.07.2011 who wanted to meet the inspecting authorities in respect of confronting the autonomous status to the College on 05.07.2011. 5. It appears, as submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner has also submitted a representation dated 29.10.2011 to the fourth respondent to provide certain documents that were cited in the show cause notice for the purpose of submitting his explanation to the same. But the fourth respondent issued a memorandum dated 12.11.2011 informing that the enquiry will be held on 21.11.2011 and the petitioner would be given permission to peruse the documents on 16.11.2011 after noon. Thereafter, the petitioner also perused those documents on 16.11.2011. However, while inspecting the documents, he noticed a resolution of the College Committee dated 13.06.2011. As per the petitioner, since the resolution dated 13.06.2011 required to submit his explanation, he sought for a copy of the resolution to be provided along with other documents. Accordingly, his representation dated 17.11.2011 has also been sent to the fourth respondent. On receipt of the said representation, it was informed that the resolution dated 13.06.2011 was not related to the proceedings against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared before the fourth respondent on 21.11.2011 and sought for two more documents. Those documents were also supplied to the petitioner. Subsequently, a preliminary enquiry was posted to 26.11.2011. 6. In the meanwhile, the grievance of the petitioner is when the petitioner himself has received the same relevant documents on 24.11.2011 and for participating in the preliminary enquiry on 26.11.2011, to put his defence, the petitioner asked for some more time instead of 26.11.2011. As the said request was refused by the impugned communication, the petitioner apprehending that the fourth respondent would pass any adverse order without the presence of the petitioner, he has come to this Court. 7. As contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that he is ready and willing to participate in the preliminary enquiry as he has received all the documents by now, but the grievance placed before this Court shows that when he has received the necessary documents on 24.11.2011, participating in the preliminary enquiry immediately without sufficient time on 26.11.2011 would, no doubt, put his defence slightly on inconvenient place. Therefore, he has asked for only two weeks time to appear for enquiry. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner also submits that till date, the fourth respondent has not passed any order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 8. The said statement of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is recorded. However, it is made clear that the fourth respondent has not passed any order, hence, this Court gives him only 10 days time to participate in the enquiry and in the meanwhile, if the fourth respondent has passed any order, it is open to the petitioner to challenge the same. 9. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. No costs. ssl Sd/- Assistant Registrar[T&P] /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Secretary, Higher Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai. 2. The Director, Directorate of Collegiate Education, College Road,Chennai-600 006. 3. The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, (Additional Incharge), Madurai Region, Vaithiyanadhayyar Street, Shenoy Nagar,Madurai-20. +1 cc to Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, Advocate SR.No.42810. +1 cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.42905. W.P.(MD)No.13861 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 Dated:07.12.2011 3P/6C RPB 18.01.2012 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/