Judgment :- The writ petition is filed against the order of the second respondent dated 21.09.2005, wherein the second respondent has framed certain charges against the petitioner and also the order of the third respondent dated 23.09.2005, placing the petitioner under suspension. 2. The petitioner, who was earlier working as Associate Lecturer and subsequently promoted as Senior Lecturer in S.S.M. Institute of Textile Technology and Polytechnic College, Kumarapalayam, Namakkal, applied for the post of Head of the Department in the second respondent college in Textile Department and he was appointed in the said post for which, the Director of Technical Education has also granted approval. After having been relieved from the earlier college on 12.04.1999, he has joined the second respondent college on the same day and he has been working without break. The second respondent after seeing the performance of the petitioner has also assigned some other tasks and he was also placed as Principle in charge. The fourth respondent has developed inimical attitude against the petitioner and started giving many memos and ultimately made a junior most selection grade Lecturer to be in charge as Principle. The petitioner was issued with the impugned charge memo on 21.09.2005, referring to the governing counsel meeting and its decision dated 20.09.2005. In the mean time, when advertisement was issued in some other college for the post of Principle, the petitioner sought for no objection certificate in the second respondent and the same has not been issued, against which the petitioner filed a writ petition. .3. The third respondent has also informed the petitioner that the governing counsel of the second respondent has placed the petitioner under suspension from 23.09.2005. The impugned proceedings are challenged on various grounds including that as per the regulations governing the 2nd and 3rd respondents especially regulation 9 of the Grant in Aid Code, it is the governing council, which has to pass such orders and the governing council has not been constituted as per regulation 9 of the Grant in Aid Code and therefore, the proceedings become invalid. It is also the case of the petitioner that in any event, the suspension is a prolonged one, which is continued from 23.09.2005. It is also the case of the petitioner that it is at the instance of the fourth respondent the entire incident has taken place. It is also the case of the petitioner that in any event, the suspension is a prolonged one, which is continued from 23.09.2005. It is also the case of the petitioner that it is at the instance of the fourth respondent the entire incident has taken place. The petitioner has also made it clear that as far as the management is concerned, the petitioner has no grievance, since the management is a great philanthropist and without the knowledge of the Chairman of the Board, it is at the instance of the Secretary, the impugned orders are passed. 4. On behalf of the respondents 2 to 4, counter affidavit have been filed by the Principle in charge of the second respondent college. According to the counter affidavit, the governing council has passed a resolution in the meeting held on 11.08.2005 and based on the same, the Principle has given memo to the petitioner, dated 12.08.2005 to which the petitioner has in fact submitted his explanation on 19.08.2005 and that was placed before the council in the meeting held on 20.09.2005. Since the explanation was not satisfactory, the petitioner was directed to be placed under suspension from 23.09.2005. It was pursuant to the resolution of the governing council in the meeting held on 20.09.2005 the suspension order came to be passed, apart from the issuance of the charge memo dated 21.09.2005. Instead of submitting explanation, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the suspension as well as the charge memo. It is only in order to maintain discipline in the campus, the said orders came to be passed. According to the respondents, it is only to cover up the lapses on the part of the petitioner, the present writ petition is filed. It is also denied that the fourth respondent is acting vindictive against the petitioner. It is also the case of the respondents that the governing council has been constituted as per the Grant in Aid Code. .5. Mr.R.Margabanthu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even a reference to the charge memo would show in respect of the first charge that the petitioner has threatened Dr.G.Sundarraj. In this regard, he would refer to the letter of the said Dr.G.Sundarraj, dated 19.08.2004 addressed to the fourth respondent Secretary, wherein he has not stated as if the petitioner has threatened him. In this regard, he would refer to the letter of the said Dr.G.Sundarraj, dated 19.08.2004 addressed to the fourth respondent Secretary, wherein he has not stated as if the petitioner has threatened him. What was stated by him in the letter was that the petitioner being the Principle in charge called him in his cabin and only told him that he was not happy for not having met him in person before applying for the post of Head of Department and therefore, the charge that the petitioner has threatened the said Dr.Sundarraj, has no basis. In respect of the second charge, which states that the petitioner has indulged in writing to Government making false allegation against the management without raising clarification from the management. In this regard, he would refer to the letters sited in the charge sheet dated 16.03.2005, a reading of which would show that the petitioner has not made any complaint and he has informed about the harassment made by the Secretary, namely, the fourth respondent. Likewise, he would also submit that the other letter, dated 20.04.2005, which is referred in the impugned charge memo also does not contain any derogative mark about the management. 6. In respect of the third and last charge, which states that the petitioner has failed to obtain approval from the Head of the Institution while applying for the post of Principle in Palani Andavar Polytechnic College. The petitioner would submit that in fact, he has approached this Court by filing a writ petition, since no objection certificate was not given. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, these are only charges, which are basically baseless and it is based on the said charges the impugned suspension order came to be passed against the petitioner. He would also submit that the charges are not grave. He would also submit that as per the Grant in Aid Code, enquiry must be completed within six months time as per Appendix III and Regulation 14. He would also rely upon the letter of the first respondent dated 25.01.2006 circulated to the Principles of all Polytechnic, stating that in respect of the Polytechnics, who are under the grant of the Government, based on Regulation 14, the Principal or the President of the governing council will have right to take disciplinary action and even such disciplinary action should be completed within 6 months time. 7. 7. The learned counsel would also submit that having passed resolution suspending the petitioner on 23.09.2005 by the second respondent college, the third respondent Principle in charge has extended the period of suspension for another period of 6 months on 20.03.2006 upto 22.09.2006 and subsequently, by order dated 19.09.2006 the suspension order has been extended upto 22.03.2007 pending charges against the petitioner. .8. On the other hand, Mr.R.Gandhi learned Senior counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4 would submit that the writ petition is not maintainable. He would also refer to the Appendix III of the Grant in Aid Code, in respect of the Technical Education Department to state that there is no period mentioned for the purpose of completion of enquiry in the disciplinary proceedings against the teachers. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the letter referred by the petitioner, issued by the first respondent dated 25.01.2006 cannot go beyond the Annexure III. The learned Senior counsel also would submit that in fact for the impugned charge memo dated 21.05.2005, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 110. 2005 and before the enquiry would be completed, the petitioner has approached this Court and therefore, there was no other go for the respondents than continuing the order of suspension, since the enquiry has not been completed due to the conduct of the petitioner and the said order of suspension was passed based on the interest of the students. 9. It is also his submission that in fact when earlier memo was given on receipt of the same charges, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 19.08.2005, it was only after considering the said explanation, the council having felt that there was a prima facie case against the petitioner, has decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and based on which the impugned charge memo was given. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 that it is the conduct of the petitioner in not appearing for the enquiry and seeking time or adjournment by one way or other the enquiry is not able to be completed. It is the contention of the learned Senior counsel Mr.R.Gandhi that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 and perused the records. It is the contention of the learned Senior counsel Mr.R.Gandhi that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 and perused the records. .11. It is admitted that the Grant in Aid Code, which is applicable to the Technical Education Department, is binding on the respondents 2 to 4 as well as the petitioner. The Grant in Aid Code in Regulation 14 while speaking about the disciplinary control over the staff would run as follows: ."14. Disciplinary control over staff.-No employee of the institution shall be punished or dismissed from the institution except in accordance with the instructions given in Appendix 3." .12. Regulation 15 also provides for appeal against any order that may be passed against the members of the teaching staffs. Appendix III, which explains the procedure for taking disciplinary action against the members of the staff, however, nowhere states that the enquiry should be completed within a prescribed time. Even in respect of suspension under Rule 3 of the Appendix III, there is no time limit for the period of suspension in respect of teaching staff as it is seen in the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Regulations Act. The said rule states as follows: ."A member may be placed under suspension from service, pending enquiry into grave charges, where such suspension is necessary in the interest of the institution. A person so suspended shall be eligible for subsistence allowance during the period of such suspension at the rates applicable to the Government servants of the corresponding cadre and status in Government Technical Institutions." 13. Even though a reading of the Appendix III shows that there is no time limit prescribed for completing the enquiry in various rules it does show that while asking for explanation and written statement of defence from teaching staff, reasonable time must be given and oral enquiry if desired by a person charged shall also be given. Even though a reading of the Appendix III shows that there is no time limit prescribed for completing the enquiry in various rules it does show that while asking for explanation and written statement of defence from teaching staff, reasonable time must be given and oral enquiry if desired by a person charged shall also be given. Even after completing the enquiry, the rules say that if the authority competent to impose penalty has arrived at a conclusion regarding the penalty to be imposed, the person charged shall be supplied with the copy of the report of the enquiry authority and call upon him to show-cause within reasonable time stating it should not exceed one month and any representation should be considered before passing any order. Therefore, it is true as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent 2 to 4 that as per the Annexure III of the Grant in Aid Code applicable to the Technical Education Department, there is no maximum period prescribed for completing the disciplinary proceedings and also there is no maximum limit for placing the petitioner under suspension. What is stated in the Grant in Aid Code is that the suspension can be passed pending enquiry and it is in the interest of the institution. .14. Apart from stating that such person is eligible for subsistence allowance, it is also not in dispute that after the impugned order of suspension was passed on 23.09.2005, which was for a period of 6 months, the same was subsequently extended and as on date the extension is upto 23.03.2007 and it is not the case of the petitioner that he has not been paid the statutory dues as per the Grant in Aid Code. When that is the position of the Code which is statutory in nature, a reference to the letter of the first respondent dated 25.01.2006 addressed to all the Principles of Polytechnics show that any disciplinary action initiated against a person working in the Polytechnic should be completed within 6 months time and unreasonable delay in completing the disciplinary proceedings should be avoided and the disciplinary proceedings should not be in the form of punishment. It is true that while the statutory rules does not stipulate the maximum limit by which the enquiry in the charges should be completed, the first respondent has stipulated 6 months time and that may not be maintainable but nevertheless a reading of the Appendix III would show that the purport is not to prolong the disciplinary proceeding unnecessarily. 15. I am of the considered view that merely because there is no clause stipulated in the Grant in Aid Code stating the maximum period within which the disciplinary proceedings should be completed does not mean that the management can keep a person under suspension for ever or continuing the disciplinary proceeding as its whims and fancies. Even though the claim and counter claim has been made by the petitioner and respondents charging each other for the delay in respect of disciplinary proceedings, considering the entire situation and taking into consideration, the interest of the institution at large and also considering that the petitioner was placed under suspension for a prolonged period from 23.09.2005, I am of the considered view that the ends of justice will be met if a direction is given to the second respondent, who is the disciplinary authority, to complete the disciplinary proceedings within a stipulated time and also with a direction to the petitioner to cooperate with the second respondent for completing the same. This is due to the reason that as per the Grant in Aid Code, the second respondent being the Chairman of the Governing Council is the authority to complete the disciplinary proceedings. 16. In view of the above said facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed with a direction to the second respondent to complete the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the impugned charge memo dated 21.09.2005, after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner as required by him in his explanation dated 110. 2005 and in accordance with Grant in Aid Code, especially with reference to Annexure III and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and also consequently, pass necessary order of revocation of order of suspension in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner as per the charge memo dated 21.09.2005. The writ petition stands ordered in the above terms. No Costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.