IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.08.2010 Coram: THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI W.P. No.15148 of 2010 and M.P. No. 1 of 2010 M.Sampath .. Petitioner vs. 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Higher Education Department Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Director of Collegiate Education E.V.K. Sampath Maligai College Road, Chennai-600 006. 3.The Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Teachers College Campus, Saidapet Chennai-600 015. 4.A.M. Jain College, Rep. by its Secretary Sardammal Chordia A.M.Jain College, Chennai-600 114. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order of increment cut dated 08.06.2010 and to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondent to comply with the proportional representation to the S.C. / S.T. as per the provision of the constitution. For Petitioner : Mr. M.Lal Bhagadur For Respondents : Mr.E.Ranganayaki, GA(Edu) O R D E R On consent, this writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. The writ petition is filed against the order of the fourth respondent dated 08.06.2010 and to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents to comply with the proportional representation to the teaching staff belonging to SC/ST as per the provision of the constitution. 3. The petitioner herein, is appointed in SC category as lecturer in Commerce from 13.07.2000 in the fourth respondent institution. While he was working so, the petitioner made repeated representations to the fourth respondent college management to include him in the selection committee for admission of students to UG and PG courses in his capacity as the only teaching staff belonging to SC/ST category. The facts made available herein would reveal that there is no cordial relationship maintained between the petitioner and the college management and the petitioner was during September 2007 issued with letter of warning for his alleged act of using derogatory and defamatory language against the Management, the College and the Principal and alleged act of threatening to bring outside political forces into the campus, which is according to the management amounting to interference in the functioning of the college. The reading of the letter of warning dated 05.09.2007 enclosed at page-1 of the typed set of papers, reveals that this letter of warning issued by reason of his interference in the matter pertaining to administration and the same is also followed by his detailed explanation dated 18.09.2007. 4. Be that as may be, the petitioner was issued with charge memo on 10.02.2010 containing 13 charges and the petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation and he has submitted his explanation dated 10.05.2010, not satisfied with his explanation, the management initiated disciplinary proceedings against him and enquiry officer was appointed and the enquiry officer has after completing his enquiry submitted his report dated 19.05.2010 to the management holding the charges 1 to 10 and 13 as proved and further holding that the charges so proved is in violation of code of conduct and the same is followed by the impugned order dated 08.06.2010, in and under which, the fourth respondent has imposed upon the petitioner minor penalty of three increments cut without cumulative effect for the proven misconduct. 5. The impugned order is challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the same is tainted with bias arbitrariness, malafide and victimisation. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was in the course of enquiry was not given adequate and fair opportunity for representing his case and what is held is only a false enquiry, with a pre determine mind to remove him from the college thereby avoiding his inclusion in the selection committee for admitting students in the PG and UG course, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also raised additional ground that the petitioner was not given any second show cause notice thereby deprived his opportunity to submit his explanation upon the findings of the enquiry officer. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents advanced serious arguments supporting the findings of the enquiry officer on merits. 7. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides. 8. As already referred to the enquiry officer after holding enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner submitted his enquiry report on 19.05.2010 the copy of the enquiry report is enclosed at pages 5 to 14 of typed set of papers. The reading of the enquiry report reveals that the petitioner was in the departmental enquiry given adequate opportunity to defend his case through his lawyer and he was through out assisted by his lawyer, the documents were marked in his presence and he was also permitted to make his oral statement. 9. Thereafter, on completion of the enquiry, the enquiry report is submitted before the 4th respondent college, who is the disciplinary authority. Though the disciplinary authority is as per the procedure bound to issue notice to the petitioner along with the copy of the enquiry report thereby calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation upon the enquiry report, the 4th respondent/Disciplinary Authority has failed to do so and passed the impugned order, thereby imposing penalty of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect. It is true that the 4th respondent/disciplinary authority thought fit to impose minor penalty for the proven charges framed under 17(b). But notwithstanding the nature of the penalty imposed upon the petitioner, the disciplinary authority ought to have, before imposing such penalty given adequate opportunity to the petitioner by issuing second show cause notice along with the copy of the enquiry report so as to enable the delinquent employee to submit his objections against the correctness of the findings rendered by the enquiry officer. The failure of the 4th respondent to afford such opportunity deprived the petitioner of his legitimate right to putforth his grievances against the findings. On that score alone, the impugned order 08.06.2010 is to be held vitiated and is liable to be set aside, however, that by itself will not preclude the disciplinary authority to proceed further as per law from the stage at which it is held to be vitiated, and the relief sought for in the writ petition against the impugned order is to be accordingly moulded. 10. Regarding the second part of the relief for issuing direction to the respondents to provide proportional representation to SC/ST staff, including the petitioner, who is the only SC/ST teaching staff in the college in the post graduation course admission committee, the same is already dealt with in the earlier writ petition in WP.No.17719/2010 in view of the same nothing survives in this writ petition in respect of such relief. 11.In the result, the impugned order of the 4th respondent dated 08.06.2010 is quashed with liberty given to the 4th respondent to proceed further by issuing show cause notice along with the copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner calling for his explanation and thereafter to consider the entire records and the representation of the petitioner, if any and to pass final order in the disciplinary proceedings. The whole exercise shall be completed within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. With this observation the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 11.08.2010 kj/tsh Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No To 1. The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Higher Education Department Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Director of Collegiate Education E.V.K. Sampath Maligai College Road, Chennai-600 006. 3.The Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Teachers College Campus, Saidapet Chennai-600 015. K.B.K.VASUKI,J. Kj/tsh W.P. No.15148 of 2010 and M.P. No. 1 of 2010 11.08.2010