Case: P. Kasilingam Vs. P.S.G. College of Technology

On February 28, 1976, the appellant while he was on probation as a Lecturer in the Department of Electronics in P.S.G. College of Technology, Coimbatore, was subjected to a departmental enquiry for dereliction of duty and irresponsible conduct by the Principal and the two charges levelled against him were (1) on February 18, 1976 he did not allow one batch of students of III-B Technology Class to complete their laboratory experiments in the test that was being held from 1.45 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. and further that he left the college before 4.30 p.m. without collecting the answer books of the students who had carried out their laboratory experiments in that test and without signing the attendance register, and (2) he failed to conduct the laboratory class for III-B Technology students which was to be held on February 25, 1976. On March 3, 1976, the appellant submitted his explanation refuting the charges framed against him and prayed that an oral enquiry be held. The Principal accordingly appointed an enquiry officer who was to commence the enquiry on March 13, 1976, but at his request it had to be adjourned to 9.0 a.m. on March 19, 1976.On March 19, 1976 at 8.30 a.m., i.e. , just as the departmental enquiry was to commence, the appellant accompanied by the Principal of the College came to the Correspondents residence and handed over two letters addressed to the Principal, first was a letter of apology and the other a letter of resignation. The letter of apology submitted by him was virtually an admission of guilt and contained a promise that he would reform in future and give no further cause for complaint. It reads:"I apologize sincerely for these lapses on my part. I assure you that hereafter I will conduct myself in conformity with the rules and the regulations of the institution and to the satisfaction of my superiors."The letter of resignation submitted along with the written apology signified his intention to leave the service of the respondent with a request that his services may be retained for six months. It was in these terms:"I hereby tender my resignation as Lecturer. I re quest that I may be relieved of my duties on 19th September, 76."There is an endorsement of even date by the Principal at the foot of the letter of resignation by which he accepted the resignation but directed that the appellant as desired b y him, be relieved from duties with effect from September 19, 1976. He further directed that the enquiry into the charges levelled against the appellant be dropped. On April 5, 1976, the Principal, however, issued a relieving order dispensing his services forthwith on payment to him salary for a period of six months by a cheque for Rs. 5, 165.53 i.e., upto the period ending on September 19, 1976 because the date September 19, 1976 fell in the midst of the academic session 1976-77 and would have disrupted the normal working of the CollegeThe appellant preferred an appeal under s. 20 of the Act to the Government on September 27, 1976.The Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 is enacted, inter alia, for the regulation of the conditions of service of teachers employed in private colleges. The avowed purpose and object of the Act is to confer protection to the teachers of private educational institutions against arbitrary action of or victimisation by the manage ment of such educational institutions, Section 20 of the Act, insofar as material, provides:"20. Any teacher or other person employed in any private college-(a) who is dismissed, removed or reduced in rank or whose appointment is otherwise terminated,(b) ...........by any order, may prefer an appeal against such order to such authority or officer as may be prescribed......."2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are these:

Court's reasoning:
Regrettably the High Court has in allowing the writ petition converted itself into a court of appeal and examined for itself the correctness of the conclusion reached by the Government and decided what was the proper view to be taken or the order to be made. It adverts to the three circumstances relied upon by the Government for reaching the conclusion that the letter of resignation was not voluntary and not accepting the report of the enquiry officer. It observes that though Prof. Shanmughasundaram, Head of the Department, had been examined during the enquiry, there was no specific question put to him during his cross-examination that the two letters had been typed by him. It further observes that there was absolutely no evidence at all as to who typed the letters in question and on whose typewriter they were got typed. It observes that the Government was also aware of the lack of evidence on this aspect of the case and it was for this reason they have not made any specific averment in the counter affidavit. They merely say the letter s seem to have been typed by the management themselves. This appears to be a mere conjecture and a finding based on such a conjecture cannot at all be supported as based on any acceptable evidence. It then proceeds to refute the suggestion of the Government that the corrections made in the two letters were in the handwriting of the Advocate appearing for the management, and goes on to say that the Government once again merely surmises that the letter contained corrections by the Advocate for the management. It also rejects the suspicion attaching to the submission of the letters of resignation and apology simultaneously by expressing that we do not see how the Government can delve into the mind of the management and find out whether there was necessity to give the letter of resignation and apology simultaneously.The Government was competent to come to the conclusion that it did upon the facts appearing on the record. The High Court could not speculate as to what were the circumstances which outweighed the finding recorded by the Addl. Director of Technical Education holding that the appellant had voluntarily submitted his resignation. The fact remains that the report submitted by him was not accepted by the Government and it came to the conclusion that the letter of resignation could not be treated to be voluntary. The Government was circumspect in viewing the circumstances surrounding the submission of the letter of resignation with certain amount of suspicion. The finding reached by the Government does not necessarily mean that the letter of resignation was obtained from the appellant under coercion. It may well be that the appellant was acting under an element of compulsion for he had become a victim of the situation brought about by the holding of a departmental enquiry and if the appellant placed in such circumstances submitted a letter of resignation it would not necessarily give rise to an inference that his act in doing so was voluntaryRegrettably the High Court has in allowing the writ petition converted itself into a court of appeal and examined for itself the correctness of the conclusion reached by the Government and decided what was the proper view to be taken or the order to be made. It adverts to the three circumstances relied upon by the Government for reaching the conclusion that the letter of resignation was not voluntary and not accepting the report of the enquiry officer. It observes that though Prof. Shanmughasundaram, Head of the Department, had been examined during the enquiry, there was no specific question put to him during his cross-examination that the two letters had been typed by him. It further observes that there was absolutely no evidence at all as to who typed the letters in question and on whose typewriter they were got typed. It observes that the Government was also aware of the lack of evidence on this aspect of the case and it was for this reason they have not made any specific averment in the counter affidavit. They merely say the letter s seem to have been typed by the management themselves. This appears to be a mere conjecture and a finding based on such a conjecture cannot at all be supported as based on any acceptable evidence. It then proceeds to refute the suggestion of the Government that the corrections made in the two letters were in the handwriting of the Advocate appearing for the management, and goes on to say that the Government once again merely surmises that the letter contained corrections by the Advocate for the management. It also rejects the suspicion attaching to the submission of the letters of resignation and apology simultaneously by expressing that we do not see how the Government can delve into the mind of the management and find out whether there was necessity to give the letter of resignation and apology simultaneously.The Government was competent to come to the conclusion that it did upon the facts appearing on the record. The High Court could not speculate as to what were the circumstances which outweighed the finding recorded by the Addl. Director of Technical Education holding that the appellant had voluntarily submitted his resignation. The fact remains that the report submitted by him was not accepted by the Government and it came to the conclusion that the letter of resignation could not be treated to be voluntary. The Government was circumspect in viewing the circumstances surrounding the submission of the letter of resignation with certain amount of suspicion. The finding reached by the Government does not necessarily mean that the letter of resignation was obtained from the appellant under coercion. It may well be that the appellant was acting under an element of compulsion for he had become a victim of the situation brought about by the holding of a departmental enquiry and if the appellant placed in such circumstances submitted a letter of resignation it would not necessarily give rise to an inference that his act in doing so was voluntaryThe contention has considerable force. It is needless to stress that ordinarily the Government must, in all such cases, as a matter of course, give the parties the opportunity of making their representations before taking a decisionIn our judgment it would however, really serve no useful purpose in remitting the appeal in this particular case to the Government for a re-hearing . It is not seriously disputed before us that the charges levelled against the appellant were not of such a nature as would merit his dismissal from service. On the contrary, it can easily be visualised that even if the appeal were sent back to the Government, it would either exonerate the appellant or may let him off with a minor penalty. The better course would be to restore the order of the Government for the reinstatement of the appellant in service, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.There still remains the question of back-wages. It is sought to be urged on behalf of the appellant that upon such reinstatement he would be entitled under the terms of sub- s.(1) of s.40 of the Act to all his arrears of pay and allowances. We are afraid, we can make no such direction in this appeal. There is nothing on record to show that any such appeal has been filed by the respondent. Sub-section (1) of s.40 makes deposit of arrears of salary and allowances upon reinstatement by the appellate authority referred to in s.20 of the Act, a pre-condition to the preferment of an appeal by the management under s.22. Only when such an appeal is preferred by the management the Tribunal is invested with jurisdiction to make a direction under sub-s.(1) of s.40 that the management shall deposit the arrears of pay and allowances due to the appellant within such time as it directs. In that event, it is of course, open to the ma nagement to raise a dispute according to sub-s.(3) of s.40 of the Act as to the amount to be deposited under sub-s.(1). In the instant case, however, since there is no appeal filed by the respondent under s.22 of the Act, the question of making a direction in terms of sub-s.(1) of s.40 of the Act does not arise7. There is no manner of doubt that the circumstances attendant upon the submission of the letter of resignation and the letter of apology on March 19, 1976 are somewhat strange. The manner in which the letter of resignation was obtained from the appellant on that day at 8.30 A.M. together with his letter of apology, just before the departmental enquiry was to commence at 9.00 A.M., clearly suggests that they were integral parts of the same transaction. It was somewhat unusual for a delinquent officer to be called to the residence of the Correspondent of the College along with the Principal and to have the two documents signed by him, as a condition for dropping the enquiry. It appears that the submission of let ter of apology, which virtually amounted to an admission of guilt, along with the unconditional letter of resignation, was part of a deal between the management and the appellant. It was meant to act as an inducement for the enquiry not to be proceeded with. One is left with the unfortunate impression that the management wanted to dispense with the services of the appellant. The Government was, therefore, justified in holding that if the appellant placed in such circumstances submitted his resignation, it would not necessarily give rise to an inference that his act in doing so was voluntary. The Government in dealing with an appeal under s. 20 of the Act was, at any rate, entitled to come to that conclusiony the High Court has in allowing the writ petition converted itself into a court of appeal and examined for itself the correctness of the conclusion reached by the Government and decided what was the proper view to be taken or the order to be made. It adverts to the three circumstances relied upon by the Government for reaching the conclusion that the letter of resignation was not voluntary and not accepting the report of the enquiry officer. It observes that though Prof. Shanmughasundaram, Head of the Department, had been examined during the enquiry, there was no specific question put to him during hisn that the two letters had been typed by him. It further observes that there was absolutely no evidence at all as to who typed the letters in question and on whose typewriter they were got typed. It observes that the Government was also aware of the lack of evidence on this aspect of the case and it was for this reason they have not made any specific averment in the counter affidavit. They merely say the letter s seem to have been typed by the management themselves. This appears to be a mere conjecture and a finding based on such a conjecture cannot at all be supported as based on any acceptable evidence. It then proceeds to refute the suggestion of the Government that the corrections made in the two letters were in the handwriting of the Advocate appearing for the management, and goes on to say that the Government once again merely surmises that the letter contained corrections by the Advocate for the management. It also rejects the suspicion attaching to the submission of the letters of resignation and apology simultaneously by expressing that we do not see how the Government can delve into the mind of the management and find out whether there was necessity to give the letter of resignation and apology simultaneously.The Government was competent to come to the conclusion that it did upon the facts appearing on the record. The High Court could not speculate as to what were the circumstances which outweighed the finding recorded by the Addl. Director of Technical Education holding that the appellant had voluntarily submitted his resignation. The fact remains that the report submitted by him was not accepted by the Government and it came to the conclusion that the letter of resignation could not be treated to be voluntary. The Government was circumspect in viewing the circumstances surrounding the submission of the letter of resignation with certain amount of suspicion. The finding reached by the Government does not necessarily mean that the letter of resignation was obtained from the appellant under coercion. It may well be that the appellant was acting under an element of compulsion for he had become a victim of the situation brought about by the holding of a departmental enquiry and if the appellant placed in such circumstances submitted a letter of resignation it would not necessarily give rise to an inference that his act in doing so was