Judgment :- (PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the proceedings in Memo No. 31449/PR 13/92 issued by the third respondent pursuant to the first respondent resolution and quash the impugned order dated 15.11.2000.) This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the third respondent dated 15.11.2000 in and by which the third respondent has intimated the petitioner by considering the letter of the petitioner dated 5.5.2000, stating that his appeal against the punishment imposed on him has been placed before the Syndicate of the Anna University on 18.10.2000 and the Syndicate resolved to uphold the decisions of the Vice-Chancellor regarding the punishment imposed on the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is working as an Assistant Professor of Chemistry, M.I.T., Campus, Chennai, having been transferred from G.C.T., Coimbatore to Anna University. It is the case of the petitioner that the fourth respondent, Head of the Department of Chemistry of Anna University has given a complaint on 30.9.1998 to the third respondent against the petitioner stating that on the said date, when a Research scholar Mr.S.Rengarraj was using e-mail facilities in connection with the symposium, the fourth respondent's son M.Aravind Velayutham who also happens to be the I year B.E., student, came to the department with his friend one D. Chidambaram, the petitioner entered into the office of the fourth respondent and shouted at them and forcibly kept them outside the room and locked them outside. He also threatened the son of the fourth respondent and his friend. There was a preliminary enquiry constituted by the third respondent consisting of Dr.S.Natarajan, Deen as a Convener, apart from Dr. M.Abdullah Khan and Dr.R.Asokamani, Members to conduct an enquiry about the alleged misbehaviour of the petitioner with the staff and students. The said fourth respondent appears to have given another complaint to the third respondent on 16.10.1998, complaining that he has suspicion that the petitioner has written anonymous telegram to the Registrar in respect of the selection of a Lecturer and also imputing that the petitioner has received money in respect of a selection, etc. There was another complaint on 26.10.1998 of an anonymous letter sent to the General Manager. There was another complaint on 26.10.1998 of an anonymous letter sent to the General Manager. M.R.L., Chennai in respect of the symposium and the allegation is that the said letter has been stated to have been written by the petitioner. In respect of the complaint of the fourth respondent dated 30.9.1998, as stated above, the enquiry committee constituted by the third respondent has gone into the said complaint and filed a report dated 18.11.1998 finding that in respect of two incidents whereby the research scholar and the student were threatened in the room of the Head of Department and the anonymous letter addressed to Dr. S.P.Elangovan dated 29.9.1998 were proved to have been done by the petitioner and the committee has recommended severe disciplinary action to curb the said misbehaviour. It was thereafter, a charge sheet was framed against the petitioner dated 14.1.1999, framing two charges with necessary materials and directing the petitioner to submit his explanation. Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted his explanation dated 5.4.1999 denying the charges. Mr.P.Murugan, Advocate was appointed as an enquiry officer to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner and enquiry officer has submitted his report on 23.11.1999. A provisional conclusion was arrived at by the Vice-Chancellor, agreeing with the enquiry officer's report to withhold the increment of the petitioner for two years without cumulative effect and the petitioner was directed to submit his explanation. The petitioner has also submitted his explanation on 31.1.2000. Ultimately, by an order dated 3.3.2000, the second respondent Vice-Chancellor, being the competent authority to impose punishment has confirmed the provisional conclusion and awarded the punishment of withholding of two years increment without cumulative effect. In the said order, the second respondent has also stated that an appeal lies against the punishment to the Syndicate within sixty days. Accordingly, the petitioner has preferred an appeal to the Chairman of the Syndicate in his appeal dated 5.5.2000 and admittedly the Syndicate after considering the appeal has confirmed the order of punishment imposed by the second respondent as communicated by the third respondent in the impugned proceedings dated 15.11.2000. 3. Aggrieved against the order of the Syndicate namely the first respondent as communicated by the third respondent, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition contending inter alia that the entire proceedings without giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner are vitiated since the same is against the principles of natural justice. 3. Aggrieved against the order of the Syndicate namely the first respondent as communicated by the third respondent, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition contending inter alia that the entire proceedings without giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner are vitiated since the same is against the principles of natural justice. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the impugned order is a non-speaking order without assigning any reason. It is also the case of the petitioner that the impugned order is in violation of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. 4. On the other hand, the third respondent has filed the counter affidavit, contraverting the allegations especially relating to the principles of natural justice. The third respondent relies upon the two letters of the petitioner dated 14.7.1999 and 7.9.1999 to show that the petitioner has voluntarily tendered his apology for his involvement in the allegation and expressed his regret. It is also the case of the third respondent that inspite of the specific admission of the misconduct by the petitioner, the fifth respondent proceeded with enquiry by giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. It is also the case of the petitioner that inspite of opportunity given to the petitioner to cross examine the fourth respondent who is the complainant, the petitioner has not availed the said opportunity, but, on the other hand, even during the enquiry, the petitioner has admitted that he has written the letters of apology voluntarily and based on the same, the enquiry officer has filed his report which resulted in the passing of the order of punishment by the second respondent as confirmed by the Syndicate namely the first respondent. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the respondents. 6. Mr. G. Venkataraman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by placing reliance on the Statute On Disciplinary Proceedings of Anna University, points out to Appendix 1 of the said procedure referring to clause 6. Clause 6 of Appendix 1, enumerates the procedure to be followed among the University Employees, which contemplates that in respect of any order imposing penalty by an authority other than the Vice Chancellor or the Syndicate, an appeal lies to the Vice-Chancellor. In case, where a penalty is imposed by the Vice-Chancellor, an appeal lies to the Syndicate, as seen in clause 6(i)(b). In case, where a penalty is imposed by the Vice-Chancellor, an appeal lies to the Syndicate, as seen in clause 6(i)(b). The said procedure also contemplates in clause 6 (iii), the procedure to be followed by the appellate authority. The said clause 6(iii) reads as follows: “6(iii) In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in these Statutes, the appellate authority shall consider, (a) Whether the facts on which the order was based have been established. (b) Whether the facts established afford sufficient ground for taking action; and (c) Whether the penalty is excessive, adequate or inadequate, and after such consideration, shall pass such order as it thinks proper.” 7. According to the writ petitioner, inasmuch as said clause contemplates that when an appeal is filed, the appellate authority shall consider whether the facts on which the order was placed has been established, as to whether such facts shall afford sufficient ground for taking action and as to whether the penalty given by the punishing authority is excessive, adequate or inadequate. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, there should be some evidence to show that the first respondent Syndicate has in fact considered while passing the order as an appellate authority. The learned counsel also submitted that as per the Statutes of Anna University, the Vice-Chancellor is the ex-officio Chairman of the Syndicate, as seen from Section 17(3) of the Anna University Act, 1978 (Tamilnadu Act 30 of 1978). 8. According to the learned counsel, a perusal of the impugned order which refers about the Syndicate results dated 18.10.2000 does not show that the Vice-Chancellor, being the Chairman of the Syndicate has not participated in the impugned resolution inasmuch as he himself was the punishing authority also. In the absence of such evidence, it should be presumed that the Vice-Chancellor being the Chairman of the Syndicate has passed the resolution under his Chairmanship. In such circumstances, the resolution should be vitiated since the Vice-Chancellor who has passed the original order of punishment cannot also sit as a Chairman in the Syndicate. It was in those circumstances, this Court has directed the respondent University to produce the Minutes of the Syndicate Resolution. The learned counsel has also produced the Minutes of the Syndicate Resolution and the resolution No.137.3.7 reads as follows: “137.3.7 TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY DR. It was in those circumstances, this Court has directed the respondent University to produce the Minutes of the Syndicate Resolution. The learned counsel has also produced the Minutes of the Syndicate Resolution and the resolution No.137.3.7 reads as follows: “137.3.7 TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY DR. N. LINGAPPAN, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR/CHEMISTRY AGAINST THEJ PUNISHMENT IMPOSED BY THE VICE-CHANCELLOR. RESOLVED TO UPHOLD the decision taken by the Vice-Chancellor, and the punishment imposed thereof.” 9. I have also perused the files relating to the appeal produced by the learned counsel for the respondent University. I found from the file that all the grounds of appeal raised by the petitioner has been in fact considered by the Syndicate, as the note sent to the Syndicate reveal the same. However, the other question as to whether the Vice-Chancellor being the Chairman of the Syndicate as per the Anna University Act has in fact participated in the Syndicate Meeting, while passing the resolution in question, has not been clarified by the learned counsel. Except to say that the Vice-Chancellor would not have participated in the said resolution, there is no substantive materials produced before this Court to show that when such resolution was taken for discussion, the Vice-Chancellor has abstained. In such circumstances, in my view, the matter must be referred afresh to the appellate authority namely the Syndicate for fresh consideration in the light of the observation made above. 10. That apart, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in respect of the said two letters, due opportunity should have been given to the petitioner to substantiate the charges framed against the petitioner. In this regard, it is relevant to point out the letters of the petitioner under which the petitioner is stated to have admitted the charges. In the letter dated 14.7.1999 written by the petitioner to the third respondent, the petitioner specifically states as follows: “With respect to the above reference, I submitted my explanation to the University on 26.02.99. Subsequently an enquiry officer was appointed. The enquiry is still pending. In the meanwhile with respect to the allegations said against me, I tender my apology to the University authorities for my part of involvement in the said allegations. I assure that I will not indulge in such things in future. Subsequently an enquiry officer was appointed. The enquiry is still pending. In the meanwhile with respect to the allegations said against me, I tender my apology to the University authorities for my part of involvement in the said allegations. I assure that I will not indulge in such things in future. Hence, I request you sir to drop the proceedings in this connection.” In the said letter, the petitioner has tendered his apology to the University authorities for his part of involvement in the allegation. He has also undertaken that he will not indulge in such activity in future. In the other letter dated 7.9.1999 written by the petitioner to the respondent Head of the Department, he states as follows: “As I felt that I am being suppressed instead of getting encouraging support to do the time bound project for NLC, Neyveli (Project of this kind for the first time in the Chemistry Department) and helplessness in the university I became depressed, emotional and lost patience and have written few hurting words about Dr. V. Murugesan in the letter to MRL. On the complaint from you Sir, I have been issued a memo by the University. I reaslise my mistake and tender my apology for having hurt your feelings. I am very much sorry for the same. Now I request you to offer your recommendations in my letter to University to drop the proceedings in this connection against me.” 11. In that letter, he specifically says that he realised the mistake and tendered apology and he has also requested the fourth respondent to recommend to the University to drop all proceedings based on the same. It cannot be said that these letters are obtained from the petitioner by any coercive methods, especially when the petitioner himself is a highly educated person with Doctorate in Chemistry. The submissions made in the letters are unequivocal admission of his involvement in the incident and any person can come to a conclusion that by these two letters, he has admitted his involvement in the charge. Inspite of the admission, the enquiry officer has conducted an enquiry and ultimately the order of penalty came to be passed against the petitioner. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on various reported judgments, especially relating to legal bias, including the judgments of this Court in the case of K. Chelliah Vs. Inspite of the admission, the enquiry officer has conducted an enquiry and ultimately the order of penalty came to be passed against the petitioner. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on various reported judgments, especially relating to legal bias, including the judgments of this Court in the case of K. Chelliah Vs. Chairman Industrial Finance Corporation Of India And Another (AIR 1973 MADRAS 122 (V 60 C 34) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Amar Nath Chowdhury Vs. Braithwaite & Co. Ltd., And Others. (AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 678) to show that in respect of the appeal against the dismissal order issued by the Managing Director, there is a legal bias in the sense that the Managing Director as a disciplinary authority, himself has passed the order. 13. It is no doubt true that if the Vice-Chancellor being the original authority to impose the punishment, has participated in the Syndicate being the appellate authority as its Chairman, in respect of the disciplinary proceedings relating to the petitioner, the same will certainly vitiate the order of the appellate authority. 14. As stated above, the learned counsel for the University is unable to produce any record to show that in the impugned resolution of the Syndicate relating to the petitioner's misconduct, the Vice-Chancellor has not participated as its Chairman. In these circumstances, it is only proper for this Court to remand the matter back to the appellate authority to consider the appeal of the petitioner afresh and pass appropriate orders. As far as the order of the original authority in imposing the punishment, this Court is not inclined to interfere, especially in the circumstances that the petitioner in his unequivocal terms, has accepted his involvement in the charge and nothing warrants by any interference as far as the punishment imposed by the original authority namely the Vice Chancellor is concerned. 15. 15. In these circumstances, the writ petition is ordered in the following terms: The impugned order of the third respondent dated 15.11.2000 communicating the resolution of the Syndicate dated 18.10.2000, by upholding the decisions of the Vice-Chancellor in respect of the punishment awarded by him against the petitioner is set aside, the Syndicate of the Anna University namely the first respondent is directed to consider afresh the appeal of the petitioner dated 5.5.2000 in respect of the punishment of withholding of increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect imposed by the Vice Chancellor and pass orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. There will be no order as to cost. Any observation made by this Court regarding the order of the Original authority namely the Vice Chancellor, should not be taken into consideration, being the appellate authority, while deciding the appeal and the appeal shall be decided in accordance with law.