Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1454 (MAD)

Prof. I. Elangovan v. State of Tamil Nadu

2003-09-15

K.GOVINDARAJAN

body2003
Judgment : 1. This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 29.8.2003 passed by the 3rd respondent rejecting the petitioner's nomination on the basis that the petitioner is under suspension and so he is not eligible to contest the election in view of the provisions in the proviso in the Statute No. 16 of Chapter XIX of the Statute made under the Chennai University Act, 1923. 2. The petitioner was originally suspended from service pending enquiry by the principal-in charge of the college on 17.7.2003 and subsequently the same was revoked by an order dated 18.7.2003. Thereafter, as directed by the 2nd respondent, the Chairman of the Governing Board of the college directed the petitioner not to sign the attendance register and not to engage classes as they cannot reinstate the petitioner. On the basis of the said order of the Chairman of the Governing Body of the college, the impugned order came to be passed rejecting the petitioner's nomination. Challenging the same, this writ petition is filed. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the suspension as contemplated under the proviso to Statute No. 16 of Chapter XIX of the Statute made under the Chennai University Act, 1923, hereinafter called ‘the Act’, which is applicable to the present case, is only suspension by way of punishment and not suspension pending enquiry. He also submitted that if the said proviso with respect to the suspension of a teacher is understood as if it is suspension pending enquiry, the manage ment of the college can prevent a person from contesting the election by passing order of suspension as if the enquiry is contemplated and after some time it can be revoked. But, meanwhile, the suspended teacher should lose his chance of contesting the election, which cannot be rectified. 4. Learned Government Pleader, in turn, submitted that when the statute provides disqualification even if a teacher is placed under suspension, it cannot be given a different meaning as the statute does not give any distinction between the suspension pending enquiry and the suspension by way of punishment. 5. On the basis of the above argument, it has to be decided whether the scope of the proviso to Statute No. 16 of Chapter XIX of the Act speaks about the suspension pending enquiry or suspension by way of punishment. 6. 5. On the basis of the above argument, it has to be decided whether the scope of the proviso to Statute No. 16 of Chapter XIX of the Act speaks about the suspension pending enquiry or suspension by way of punishment. 6. In thenormal course, the suspension has to be taken as suspension by way of punishment. To place a person under suspension pending enquiry of the charges leveled against him, there should be a specific power as held in the judgment in S.D.O., Faizabad v. S.N. Singh , AIR 1970 S.C. 140 . Moreover, as rightly submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, if it is taken as suspension pending enquiry, the management can prevent a teacher from contesting election by placing the teacher under suspension as if disciplinary action is contemplated and thereafter it can be revoked. Even if it is revoked, the damage cannot be rectified. Moreover, the order of suspension pending enquiry cannot be construed as a punishment so as to treat the same as disqualification. So the suspension under the said provision has to be construed only as a suspension by way of punishment and not as a suspension pending enquiry. 7. Inthe present case, even the impugned order dated 29.8.2003 cannot be construed as an order of suspension as the order of suspension has already been revoked on 18.7.2003. Even if it is construed as an order of suspension, it could be only pending further proceedings. Even then, the same cannot be relied on to reject the petitioner's nomination as the petitioner has not been suspended by way of punishment. 8. In view of the above, the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's nomination is set aside. Though the above said order is passed setting aside the impugned order, since the election has already been started and final list of valid nomination has already been declared and papers were issued on 15.9.2003 (today), I am not inclined to direct the 3rd respondent-University to reconsider the petitioner's case. So, even the petitioner had succeeded in his case in challenging the impugned order, for the above said reasons, no further relief could be given. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. W.P.M.P. Nos. 30298 and 30299 of 2003 are also dismissed.