Madras High Court
Dr.B.Justus Rabi vs Anna University
W.P.(MD)No.9613 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 13.06.2024
Delivered On : 11.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
W.P.(MD)No.9613 of 2022
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.6904 of 2022
Dr.B.Justus Rabi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Anna University,
Rep. By its Vice Chancellor,
Guindy,
Chennai – 600 025.
2.The Director,
Centre for Affiliation of Institutions,
Anna University,
Guindy,
Chennai – 600 025.
3.All India Council for Technical Education,
AICTE – Southern Regional Office,
'Shastri Bhavan',
26, Haddows Road,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 006.
4.Christian College of Engineering and Technology,
Run by Christian Education Health & Development Society,
represented by its Chairman,
Palani – Dindigul Main Road,
Oddanchatram,
Dindigul District – 624 619.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/22
W.P.(MD)No.9613 of 2022
5.The President,
Christian Education Health & Development Society,
represented by its Chairman,
Palani – Dindigul Main Road,
Oddanchatram,
Dindigul District – 624 619.
6.The Secretary,
Christian Education Health & Development Society,
Palani – Dindigul Main Road,
Oddanchatram,
Dindigul District – 624 619. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of
the 5th and 6th respondents as contained in the undated impugned order viz.,
“Order of Discharge” passed by the respondents 5 and 6 and quash the
same and to consequently direct the respondents 5 and 6 to reinstate the
petitioner in the 4th respondent College as Principal with backwages,
continuity of service, monetary service and all other benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.E.V.N.Siva
For 3rd Respondent : Mr.N.Dilip kumar
For 5 Respondent
th
: No Appearance
For Respondents 4 to 6 : Mr.Issac Mohanlal, Senior Counsel
For Mr.T.Cibi Chakraborthy
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed, to quash the the undated impugned order viz., “Order of Discharge” passed by the respondents 5 and 6 and to direct the respondents 5 and 6 to reinstate the petitioner in the 4th respondent College as Principal with backwages, continuity of service, monetary service and all other benefits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/22 W.P.(MD)No.9613 of 2022
2.The petitioner had completed his under-graduation (B.E.) in Electrical and Electronics Engineering (EEE) and post-graduation (M.E.) in EEE. In the year 2007, he completed his Doctorate in the field of 'power quality', from the first respondent. He commenced his career as a Lecturer, soon after completion of his post-graduation and remained an academician all through his career till date. He has also been recognized as a Guide/Supervisor by the first respondent for Research Scholars of the first respondent and had published several research papers in referred journals and in international conferences as well as national conferences. He had also conducted several workshops and seminars. The fourth respondent is an Engineering College functioning at Dindigul District, approved by the third respondent and affiliated with the first respondent and the same is run by the Christian Education Health and Development Society, in which the respondents 5 and 6 are the President and Secretary respectively. During the year 2019, the fourth respondent had called for applications for the post of Principal, for which the petitioner had made his application and in an interview conducted by the respondents 4 to 6 on 07.05.2019, the petitioner came to be selected. An appointment order dated 30.05.2019 was issued by the fourth respondent College, appointing the petitioner as Principal. As per the norms of the third respondent, the petitioner was recruited as the Principal of the fourth respondent College, for a contractual term of 5 years, that is, from 2019 to 2024. However, he was placed under probation for a period of 1 year, that is, till 30.05.2020. He took charge as the Principal of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/22 W.P.(MD)No.9613 of 2022 the fourth respondent College on 01.06.2019. On completion of his probation period, the fourth respondent assessed his performance and confirmed his service with effect from 01.06.2020 and the confirmation order was issued on 30.10.2020. While things stood thus, vide an order passed by the first respondent dated 16.06.2021, bearing letter No. 178/CAI/AU/2021, the petitioner was debarred from holding any position in any of the institution affiliated under the first respondent. The said order was passed without issuing a proper show cause notice to the petitioner and without intimating the charges against him. Hence, he challenged the same before this Court by filing a Writ Petition in W.P.No.13362 of 2021 and this Court was pleased to pass an order of stay on 30.06.2021 and the same was made absolute by this Court on 15.07.2021. In view of the said interim order passed by this Court in W.P.No.13362 of 2021, there had been no bar for the petitioner to hold any position in any of the Colleges affiliated with the first respondent. Under such circumstances to the utter shock and dismay of the petitioner, by an undated order with the nomenclature “order of discharge”, the respondents 5 and 6 had arbitrarily discharged the petitioner from his service as the Principal of the fourth respondent College with effect from the afternoon hours of 02.05.2022. The said order was communicated to the petitioner through courier, which was received by him on 02.05.2022. The said order is bereft of any reason for his termination and it proceeds on the footing that he was discharged from his probationary service with effect from 02.05.2022. In view of the same, challenging the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/22 W.P.(MD)No.9613 of 2022 said order of discharge, this Writ Petition came to be filed.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed on 30.05.2019 and on completion of probation for a period of one year till 30.05.2020, the fourth respondent had issued a confirmation order on 30.10.2020 with effect from 01.06.2020. However, the delay in issuance of the said order was attributed by the fourth respondent to the then prevailing pandemic condition. Once the probation period is completed by the appointee, he automatically becomes an employee who is substantially appointed. Hence, the undated order of discharge issued by the respondents 5 and 6, without putting the petitioner on notice from his service as the Principal of the fourth respondent with effect from 02.05.2022, is stigmatic and on the face of it, the same is void.
4.The learned counsel further contended that, had the petitioner been in probation in real terms and had the impugned order came to be issued by the respondents 5 and 6 during his period of probation, then termination simpliciter would suffice. But this is an order of discharge passed by the respondents 5 and 6, after his probation had been confirmed by the fourth respondent, by his order dated 30.10.2020, which was issued confirming the completion of probation of the petitioner with effect from 01.06.2020. Having passed the impugned order of discharge in a cryptic fashion without attributing any reasons and without putting the petitioner on notice, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/22 W.P.(MD)No.9613 of 2022 respondents in their counter have relied upon the order passed by the first respondent dated 06.06.2021, by which the petitioner was debarred from holding any position in any institution affiliated under the first respondent.
5.In view of the established position of law that the impugned order cannot be improved by the respondents in their counter later by giving explanation to the impugned order, the learned counsel insisted that the impugned order of discharge has to be tested in the line of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill versus Chief Election Commissioner reported in 1978 (1) SCC 405. The submission of the fourth respondent in the counter affidavit that the impugned order of discharge is passed only at the request of the petitioner is false and an afterthought. The learned counsel contended that this could be understood from the fact that the petitioner on receipt of the impugned order on 02.05.2022, had immediately moved this Court on 06.05.2022 itself. Hence, the conduct on the part of the petitioner in itself infers that he was aggrieved by the impugned order and in fact, the order is stigmatic as it reasons out the dissatisfaction on the service of the petitioner as a ground for discharge and pressed for quashing the impugned order of discharge, thereby allowing the petition.
6.The sixth respondent has filed a counter affidavit and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 4 to 6 submitted that, there https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/22 W.P.(MD)No.9613 of 2022 are seven institutions under the sixth respondent Society, which is an Educational Agency. The fourth respondent College was established in the year 2001 and the same is a self-financing Religious Minority Professional College, which is not receiving any grant in aid from the State, but approved by the All India Council for Technical Education and affiliated to the first respondent University. It is true that the petitioner was appointed as the Principal of the fourth respondent college on contractual basis for a period of five years with effect from 30.05.2019 and he was placed under one year probation subject to the terms and conditions of his appointment. He further submitted that at the time of appointment, the petitioner agreed that his appointment to the post of Principal would be made substantial by a specific order for the remaining period of contract of four years with three months notice on both sides upon his satisfactory performance in the College. However, to the shock and surprise of the respondents 4 to 6, during the month of April 2022, the sixth respondent came to know that the Anna University, that is, the first respondent had debarred the petitioner from occupying any academic position in the University Departments/University Colleges/Colleges affiliated to the first respondent University as early as on 16.06.2021, on the basis of the recommendation of a three members Inquiry Committee, which had come to the conclusion that the petitioner was working as Professor and Head of the Department in the Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, at Madanapalle Institute of Technology and Science, Madanapalle, Andhra Pradesh (between https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/22 W.P.(MD)No.9613 of 2022 16.06.2007 and 12.06.2010), at the time of applying for his Research Supervisor in Anna University, during October 2009, in contravention to the Clause 7.1 of PHD regulations, 2004 and that he had also worked simultaneously in another College at Adiparashakti Engineering College, Melmarvathur, during the period between October 2009 to June 2010.
7.He further submitted that, it came to light that the petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.No.13362 of 2021, challenging the aforesaid proceedings of the first respondent University dated 16.06.2021 and this Court was pleased to pass an order of stay of the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 16.06.2021, on 30.06.2021. However, in the aforesaid Writ Petition, neither the fourth respondent College nor the Management had been made a party respondent by the petitioner and the said Writ Petition is still pending. On coming to know about the said action taken by the first respondent University and the Writ petition filed by the petitioner, the Management wanted to take disciplinary action against him. But the petitioner had informed the College Management that he is ready and willing to seek employment elsewhere and pleaded with the Management to discharge him from the post of Principal immediately, without recording any stigma or imputation and he also would leave the College. Keeping in mind the carrier of the petitioner, the College with a bona fide intention to discharge him without recording any stigma or imputation, the order of discharge simpliciter was sent to the petitioner through courier along with a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/22 W.P.(MD)No.9613 of 2022 crossed cheque for Rs.1,65,500/- (cheque bearing No.071711 dated 02.05.2022, South Indian Bank, Ottanchathram) towards one month emolument. However, the petitioner contrary to his request, had challenged the order of discharge by filing this Petition. He further submitted that to add fuel to the fire, on 04.05.2022, the College Management came to know that the petitioner had taken all the degree certificates of the various teaching staffs in original, which was with him, while leaving the College on 02.05.2022, which was kept in the office of the Principal. Hence, immediately the sixth respondent by letter dated 05.05.2022, had instructed the petitioner to hand over the documents and other items of the institution immediately and warned him that the Management would take steps as per law to receive the documents and other items. A registered legal notice to that effect was also issued on him on 05.05.2022. Following which, the sixth respondent had lodged a criminal complaint against the petitioner before the Ottanchathram Police Station, for which a C.S.R.No.277 of 2022 was issued on 04.05.2022. Under such scenario, a criminal case in Crime No.266 of 2022 came to be registered on 24.05.2022, for the offences under Sections 408 and 381 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, by the Ottanchathram Police as against the petitioner and the same had culminated in the filing of final report before the concerned learned Judicial Magistrate, at Ottanchathram.
8.Taking upon the learned counsel for the petitioner who had questioned the maintainability of this Writ Petition, the learned Senior https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/22 W.P.(MD)No.9613 of 2022 Counsel submitted categorically that, since the fourth respondent College is discharging a public function and the petitioner was performing a public duty in the fourth respondent College, the Writ Petition is very well maintainable. He further insisted that the petitioner had failed to consider that the College had dealt him with empathy and benevolence by issuing an order of discharge on his request without any adverse remarks, only keeping in mind his future employment prospectus. Having acceded to his request for a ceremonious exit from the fourth respondent College, the petitioner ought not to have filed this Writ Petition as against the respondents. Under such circumstances, the impugned order of discharge has to be tested in the teeth of the first respondent rendering him unqualified to hold any academic position in any of the University/Department/Colleges affiliated to the first respondent University, by order dated 16.06.2021 and pressed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
9.Heard Mr.G.Prabhu Rajathurai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.E.V.N.Siva, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned counsel for the third respondent, Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, for Mr.T.Cibi Chakraborty, the learned senior counsel for the respondents 4 to 6 and carefully perused the materials available on record.
10.Obviously, the impugned undated order of discharge issued by the sixth respondent received by the petitioner on 02.05.2022, is defective on https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/22 W.P.(MD)No.9613 of 2022 the face of it for the sole reason that it has been mentioned in the aforesaid order that the petitioner is discharged from his probationary service ending with 02.05.2022. It is needless to state that the petitioner was appointed by the order of the sixth respondent dated 30.05.2019 as per AICTE norms for a contractual term of 5 years, that is, from 2019 to 2024. Later, by order dated 30.10.2020, the sixth respondent had confirmed the completion of probation period by the petitioner with effect from 01.06.2020 and the same is extracted as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/22 W.P.(MD)No.9613 of 2022
11.No doubt in the interregnum, by order dated 16.06.2021, the first respondent University had debarred the petitioner from holding any academic position in any of the University/Department/Colleges affiliated under the first respondent Society. The relevant portion of the enquiry conducted by the three member committee of Anna University, is extracted as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/22 W.P.(MD)No.9613 of 2022 “2. A Three Member Committee was constituted by the Vice- Chancellor, Anna University to enquire and verify the genuinity of academic certificates submitted to the Director, Research, Anna University towards the eligibility of Research Supervisorship and work experience of Dr.Justus Rabi, Principal of Christian College of Engineering and Technology, Oddanchatram, Dindigul.
3. You were invited for the enquiry and the meeting was conducted in the Chamber of Registrar, Anna University on 15.04.2021. The Committee conducted the enquiry based on all the documents submitted by yourself and has given the following observations.
4. You have accepted and confessed that at the time of submission of the application for research supervisor recognition at Anna University, Chennai in the month of October 2009, you were working in Madanapalle Institute of Technology and Science, Madanapalle, Andhra Pradesh.
5. The relieving order issued by the above institution has mentioned that you have worked from 16.6.2007 to 12.6.2010 as Professor and Head of the Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering.
6. At the same time, you took up Visiting Professor position at Adhiparasakthi Engineering College and handled classes from October 2009 to June 2010. You had applied for Supervisor recognition to Anna Unn arsity and obtained Anna University Research Supervisorship.
7. This is total violation of the norms of Anna University, Chennai vide Clause 7. Supervisor Recognition Sub clause 7.1 of Ph.D. Regulations 2004 The applicant for supervisor recognition shall be working as full time faculty in the University Departments / University Colleges / Colleges affiliated to the University of employed full time in the place as indicated under https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13/22 W.P.(MD)No.9613 of 2022 clause 3.2.3".
8. Whereas you had been working 8/ in two places simultaneously during October 2009 to June 2010 against the norms and ethical practices.
9. Hence, the Three Member Committee of Anna University has recommended Cancellation of Supervisorship and debarred you from occupying any academic position in the Anna University Departments / Anna University Colleges / Affiliated Colleges of Anna University, due to contravention of clause 7.1 of Ph.D. Regulations 2004 and cheating Anna University.”
12.Though the petitioner had challenged the aforesaid order of the first respondent University by filing a Writ Petition in W.P.No.13362 of 2021, in which an interim order of stay was passed by this Court in 30.06.2021 and further on 15.07.2021, the said interim order has also been made absolute, the said Writ Petition is still pending. In the meanwhile, on 01.03.2021, the All India Council for Technical Education had required the Registrar of the first respondent University to enquire into the genuineness of the complaints placed before the Standing Complaint Scrutiny Committee of All India Council for Technical Education with respect to the genuineness of the experience certificates provided by the petitioner. Following which, an enquiry committee has been constituted by the Vice Chancellor Anna University to verify the genuineness of the academic and work experience certificates submitted by the petitioner and in connection to that, a meeting was scheduled for conducting an enquiry as against the petitioner and in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14/22 W.P.(MD)No.9613 of 2022 terms of the minutes resolved by the committee which met in the Chamber of Registrar Anna University, Chennai, on 15.04.2021, the petitioner's certificates were duly verified and he was also afforded with an opportunity of hearing and the following recommendations came to be issued by the aforesaid Committee:-
“The Committee after thorough scrutiny and verification of the documents related to his academic and work experience followed by his confessions and statements that Dr.Justus Rabi had hid the fact that he had been working in the Madanapalle Institute of Technology and Science, Madanapalle, Andhra Pradesh at the time of applying for his Research Supervisor in Anna University in contravention to the Clause 7.1 of Ph.D Regulations 2004 and committed an act of cheating Anna University and the complete system of governance which needs to be viewed very seriously, else the very system of academic excellence for which the University stands would be derailed sooner or later. Hence, the committee has no hesitation in recommending the cancellation of supervisorship of Dr.Justus Rabi with immediate effect and debars him from occupying any academic position in the University departments/University Colleges/Colleges affiliated to the University henceforth.”
13.While being so, on 21.07.2022, All India Council for Technical Education had slapped the sixth respondent College with a show cause notice for having appointed the petitioner as Principal, who was not qualified to be a Principal and the relevant portion of the same is extracted as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15/22 W.P.(MD)No.9613 of 2022 “Whereas, PGRC, AICTE has forwarded following proceeding of Standing Complaint Scrutiny Committee (SCSC) meeting held on 11th July to 13th July on the complaints of Shri.A.Arockiaraja, r/o 2/107, Anna Nagar, Kosavapatty, Emakkalapuram (Via), Dindigul – 624 304, Tamil Nadu & Mrs.Jaya, r/o No.63 2C2, Agathiyarliam East, Ramanathapuram, Dindigul – 624 001, Tamilnadu.
"In the SCSC Committee meeting held on 04/03/2022, the Principal of Christian College of Engineering and Technology, Tamil Nadu, was asked to furnish the authentication of UG/PG Degrees obtained by him. In his reply sent to AICTE dated 12.04.2022, two copies of University authentication of B.E. Electrical and Electronics are attached.
The authentication of ME and PhD degree of the Principal and his experience of PhD guidance and research is required. The institute is directed to forward the authentication of ME & PhD degrees from respective Universities and the details of registration and degree obtained by his PhD scholars from the university where those were registered, on or before the next date of hearing.
Today the case was listed before the Committee and a reply dated 16.06.2022 from the Principal In-charge from the Institute was placed on record.
As per Pare 14 of the reply dated 16.05.2022, it if accepted that the Principal R.Justus Rabi was not qualified as be Principal. Therefore, the file is forwarded to Approval Bureau-AICTE to take appropriate action under section 8.3 of APH, 2022-23 As far as PGRC concerned, the complaint is closed" Whereas, from the Standing Complaint Scrutiny Committee (SCSC) it is evident that the Principal B. Justus Rabi was not qualified to be (Principal). As such, the institute has violated the regularity provisions of chapter VIll of Approval Process Handbook 2022-23. Therefore, Christian (College of Engineering and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16/22 W.P.(MD)No.9613 of 2022 Technology (PID 1-46614914) is liable to any one or more of the punitive action by the Council as mentioned in clause 8.3 of Chapter-VIII of Approval Process Handbook 2022-23.
Now, therefore Christian College of Engineering and Technology (PID 1-4661491) is hereby directed to Show Cause as to why appropriate punitive action under Chapter-VIll of Approval Process Handbook should not be initiated against them for violating the existing regulations of the Council.”
14.It is only under such circumstances, the sixth respondent had issued the undated impugned order of discharge, which was received by the petitioner on 02.05.2022. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the 6th respondent, in view of the various developments which had arisen with respect to the genuineness of the certificates produced by the petitioner before the 1st respondent University and the 1st respondent University's action initiated as against the petitioner in debarring him from occupying any academic position in any of the Universities/Departments/Colleges affiliated to the 1st respondent University, the 6th respondent Society has been pushed to an awkward situation with respect to allow the petitioner to continue in service as the Principal of the 4th respondent College. However, the said order of discharge ought to have been issued by the 6th respondent by giving him with an opportunity of hearing by issuing appropriate notice on him as to the proposal of discharging him from service. Having not done so, obviously, no doubt, the 6th respondent had violated all the principles of natural justice https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 17/22 W.P.(MD)No.9613 of 2022 and accordingly, the impugned undated order of discharge as received by the petitioner on 02.05.2020 is liable to be quashed.
15.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others versus B.Karunakar and others reported in 1993 4 SCC 727, has dealt with the case of disciplinary proceeding where the delinquent employee was not provided with an enquiry report and the relevant portion of the decision of the Hon'ble Full Court of the Honourable Apex Court is extracted as follows:-
“31.Hence, in all cases where the Inquiry Officer's report is not furnished to the delinquent employee in the disciplinary proceedings, the courts and Tribunals should cause the copy of the report to be furnished to the aggrieved employee if he has not already secured it before coming to the Court! Tribunal, and give the employee an opportunity to show how his or her case was prejudiced because of the non-supply of the report. If after hearing the parties, the Court., Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the non-supply of the report would have made no difference to the ultimate findings and the punishment given, the Court/Tribunal should not interfere with the order of punishment. The Court/Tribunal should not mechanically set aside the order of punishment on the ground that the report was not furnished as is regrettably being done at present. The courts should avoid resorting to short-cuts. Since it is the Courts/ Tribunals which will apply their judicial mind to the question and give their reasons for setting aside or not setting aside the order of punishment, (and not any internal appellate or revisional authority), there would be https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18/22 W.P.(MD)No.9613 of 2022 neither a breach of the principles of natural justice nor a denial of the reasonable opportunity. It is only if the Courts/ Tribunals find that the furnishing of the report would have made a: difference to the result in the case that should set aside the order of punishment Where after following the above procedure the Courts/Tribunals sets aside the order of punishment, the proper relief that should be granted is to direct reinstatement of the employee with liberty to the authority, management to proceed with the inquiry, by placing the employee under suspension and continuing the inquiry from the stage of furnishing him with the report. The question whether the employee would be entitled to the back-wages and other benefits from the date of his dismissal to the date of his reinstatement if ultimately ordered should invariably be left to be decided by the authority concerned according to law, after the culmination of the proceedings and depending on the final outcome. If the employee succeeds in the fresh inquiry and is directed to be reinstated, the authority should be at liberty to decide according to law how it will treat the period from the date of dismissal till the reinstatement and to what benefits, if any and the extent of the benefits, he will be entitled. The reinstatement made as a result of the setting aside of the inquiry for failure to furnish the report should be treated as a reinstatement for the purpose of holding the fresh inquiry from the stage of furnishing the report and no more, where such fresh inquiry is held. That will also be the correct position in law.”
16.This Court is of the considered opinion that the 6 th respondent had been put to a fix by the controversies, which revolved around the appointment of the petitioner as the Principal of the 4th respondent College https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 19/22 W.P.(MD)No.9613 of 2022 administrated by the 6th respondent. To salvage themselves from the controversy revolving around his appointment as the Principal of the 4th respondent College in a hurry, the 6th respondent had adopted a shortcut by issuing the impugned undated order of discharge without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
17.Taking seriously into consideration the action taken by the 1st respondent as against the petitioner from debarring him from holding any academic position in any of the Universities/Colleges/Departments affiliated to the 1st respondent University, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is benefited only because of the shortcut adopted by the 6th respondent in issuing the impugned order of discharge as against him.
18.In view of the same, this Court hereby quash the impugned undated order of discharge passed by the 6th respondent and consequently direct the 6th respondent to notionally reinstate him without physical participation back in the post of Principal within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, it is made clear that the reinstatement made as a result of quashing the impugned order of discharge should be treated as a reinstatement exclusively for the purpose of conducting a proper disciplinary proceeding as against the petitioner from the stage of issuing him with a notice as to the proposal of discharging him from service. The question whether the employee would be entitled to back https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 20/22 W.P.(MD)No.9613 of 2022 wages and other benefits from the date of his discharge to the date of his reinstatement should invariably be left to be decided by the 6th respondent concerned according to law in terms of the final outcome of the disciplinary proceedings, which would be initiated as against him, as a result of this order passed by this Court.
19.Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
11.09.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
Mrn
To
All India Council for Technical Education,
AICTE – Southern Regional Office,
'Shastri Bhavan',
26, Haddows Road,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
21/22
W.P.(MD)No.9613 of 2022
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Mrn
W.P.(MD)No.9613 of 2022
11.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
22/22