Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2383 (MAD)

X. Lazer v. Director of Collegiate Education

2012-06-12

S.MANIKUMAR

body2012
Judgment 1. The petitioner, has sought for a mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent to permit him to rejoin duty forthwith as Assistant Professor (Zoology) in Muslim Arts College, Thiruvithamcode. 2. Facts deduced from the supporting affidavit are as follows: The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor of Zoology in the 3rd respondent college on 17.07.1987 and he joined duty on 20.07.1987. The college is recognised by Government of Tamilnadu and affiliated to Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli. Due to some misunderstanding with his wife, a complaint was lodged by her against the petitioner and his parents, alleging that they demanded dowry from her parents. The learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagercoil, who tried the accused, by judgment dated 29.09.1999, convicted and sentenced the petitioner and his father to undergo imprisonment and also imposed fine. The petitioner, including his father filed Crl.A.No.81 of 1999 against the said judgment. During the pendency of the appeal the sentence was suspended and consequently, the petitioner and his father were enlarged on bail. Lateron, the appeal was transferred to this Court, Madras and converted into Crl.A.No.859 of 2002. This Court, by judgment dated 15.11.2002, set aside the conviction and sentence and, acquitted all the accused. 3. The petitioner has further contended that earlier on account of conviction by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagercoil, the Secretary, Muslim Arts College, Thiruvithamcode, the 3rd respondent suspended the petitioner from service, by his order dated 14.10.1999, with effect from 13.10.1999. A show cause notice dated 28.03.2000, was also issued calling upon the petitioner, as to why he should not be removed from service, with effect from 11.04.2000. 4. On the petitioner's representation dated 07.04.2000, requesting the 3rd respondent to keep the proposed punishment in abeyance till the disposal of the criminal appeal, the 3rd respondent stopped further proceedings. After a period of two years and two months, the petitioner was served with a letter dated 08.12.2001 stating that he had been terminated from service, from the date on which he was suspended. 5. Consequent to the acquittal by this Court on 15.11.2002, in Crl.A.No.859 of 2002, the petitioner has sent a registered representation dated 13.12.2002, seeking for reinstatement in service. As the said representation was not considered, the petitioner has preferred W.P.No.2659 of 2003, for a mandamus, directing the respondents to consider his representation. 5. Consequent to the acquittal by this Court on 15.11.2002, in Crl.A.No.859 of 2002, the petitioner has sent a registered representation dated 13.12.2002, seeking for reinstatement in service. As the said representation was not considered, the petitioner has preferred W.P.No.2659 of 2003, for a mandamus, directing the respondents to consider his representation. Accordingly, this Court by the order dated 29.01.2003, directed the Secretary, Muslim Arts College, Thiruvathamcode, the 3rd respondent college herein to consider the said representation and pass suitable orders within 12 weeks. Copy of the order was also sent to the 3rd respondent along with the lawyer's letter dated 15.02.2003. In response to the above, 3rd respondent gave a reply dated 01.03.2003 stating that the College Management Committee in its meeting dated 28.02.2003 has considered the case of the petitioner for reinstatement favourably and decided to give suitable chance in the forthcoming semester (since the then semester was to end in one month) and to contact the Secretary, in the next semester for favourable action. It is the further case of the petitioner that the next semester commenced on 16.06.2003. As the petitioner was not taken back to duty, he has sought for a mandamus, as stated supra. 6. In addition to the above pleadings, Mr.Ragatheesh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that consequent to the judgment of this Court in Crl.A.No.859 of 2002, the management committee had already decided the case of the petitioner for reinstatement favourably and also assured that a chance would be given to the petitioner in the next semester in the year 2003 itself and in such circumstances, it is not open to the Management to deny reinstatement. 7. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the termination of petitioner's service was solely on the basis of conviction. As conviction has been set aside, the consequence to follow is reinstatement of the petitioner, particularly, when a decision had already been taken by the college committee. As there is failure on the part of the 3rd respondent college to honour the assurance given in the letter dated 01.03.2003, he has prayed for issuance of a mandamus. 8. Based on the averments made in the counter affidavit, filed by the Secretary and Correspondent of Muslim Arts College, Thiruvathamcode, Kanyakumari District, Mr.Liagat Ali, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Asst. 8. Based on the averments made in the counter affidavit, filed by the Secretary and Correspondent of Muslim Arts College, Thiruvathamcode, Kanyakumari District, Mr.Liagat Ali, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Asst. Professor in Zoology Department in their college on 17.07.1987. He has further submitted that the petitioner was alleged to have demanded huge dowry from his wife's parents and tortured his wife on that ground. A criminal case was registered against him and others, under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as well as for the offences punishable under Section 420 and 498(A) of IPC. He further submitted that the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagercoil, by judgment dated 29.09.1999, sentenced the petitioner to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment. According to him, the 3rd respondent college is a Co-educational institution and to keep the dignity and decorum of the college, the management had to take immediate action. Consequent to conviction, the petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 13.10.1999. Thereafter, after providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, he was removed from service. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that upon perusal of the judgment of this Court, made in Crl.A.No.859 of 2002 dated 15.11.2002, it was found that acquittal was mainly on two grounds i.e., (1) on the basis of an affidavit filed by the petitioner stating that the dispute had been settled between himself and his wife, the complainant, on payment of a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-and (2) on the basis of unsatisfactory evidence. He therefore submitted that the acquittal ordered by this Court in Crl.A.No.859 of 2002 dated 15.11.2002, cannot be construed as honourable acquittal. 10. According to the learned counsel for the respondents 3 & 4, the offences involved by the petitioner are serious in nature and allowing such person to continue in service would reduce the image of their co-educational institution. According to him, the offences alleged against the petitioner involves moral turpitude and therefore, mere acquittal does not confer any right to claim for reinstatement. He further submitted that after the dismissal of the petitioner, there is no vacancy in the 3rd respondent institution in Zoology department and as such, the question of reinstating the petitioner does not arise. 11. According to him, the offences alleged against the petitioner involves moral turpitude and therefore, mere acquittal does not confer any right to claim for reinstatement. He further submitted that after the dismissal of the petitioner, there is no vacancy in the 3rd respondent institution in Zoology department and as such, the question of reinstating the petitioner does not arise. 11. According to the learned counsel for the 3rd and 4th respondents, the order of termination dated 08.12.2001 has not been challenged in the manner known to law and therefore mere acquittal by this court does not give any right to the petitioner to seek for reinstatement. In support of his contention, he placed reliance in K.P.Selvarajan Vs. The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Madras10 and another, reported in 2003(3) CTC 51. 12. Learned counsel for the 3rd and 4th respondents further submitted that the petitioner was only a temporary employee and therefore, he cannot seek for reinstatement, as a matter of right. He also submitted that by this time, the petitioner would have been employed elsewhere and therefore the relief sought for, at this juncture would not survive. 13. Respondents 1 and 2 have not filed any counter affidavit. 14. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 15. Perusal of the appointment order dated 17.07.1987 of the General Secretary, Muslim Arts & Science College, Thiruvithancode, shows that the petitioner has been appointed as Assistant Professor in Zoology on UGC scale of pay, with effect from the date of joining. There is nothing to indicate that the appointment of the petitioner was temporary. 16. Admittedly, the petitioner has been implicated in a criminal case alleging commission of offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as well as offences punishable under Section 420 and 498(A) of IPC. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner and others who were tried for the abovesaid offences by judgment dated 29.09.1999 have been convicted to undergo five year rigorous imprisonment by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagercoil. Lateron, the conviction has been set aside by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.859 of 2002 dated 15.11.2002. 17. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner and others who were tried for the abovesaid offences by judgment dated 29.09.1999 have been convicted to undergo five year rigorous imprisonment by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagercoil. Lateron, the conviction has been set aside by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.859 of 2002 dated 15.11.2002. 17. At the outset, the contention of the management that the petitioner was a temporary employee and therefore he is not entitled to seek for reinstatement, cannot be countenanced, for the simple reason that from 1987 onwards, the petitioner was in service, until, he was terminated, consequent to conviction. Needless to say that an appointment to the post of lecturer in a college, recognised by the government and affiliated to an University, must be approved by the concerned Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Higher Education Department and that the said appointment has to satisfy the qualifications prescribed by the University Grants Commission, for which, necessary proposals have to be sent by the concerned college to the University to which the college is affiliated. 18. In the case on hand, the petitioner had been in employment from 1987 onwards, till he was placed under suspension on 13.10.1999, pursuant to the judgment of the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagercoil, convicting the petitioner and others for the charges levelled against them. Certainly, for more than 12 years, the petitioner would not have worked temporarily. That apart, no materials have been placed before this Court by the 3rd respondent management to substantiate the contention that the petitioner was only a temporary employee. 19. Further, the submission of the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent that the petitioner was only a temporary employee and that therefore, he is not entitled to seek for reinstatement, as a matter of right, pursuant to acquittal ordered by this court in Crl.A.No.859 of 2002 dated 15.11.2002, does not merit any consideration, as the said argument is without any pleading. When the petitioner was convicted by the Criminal Court, vide order dated 13.10.1999, he has been placed under suspension. Though, respondents 3 & 4 have submitted that after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, he was terminated from service, averments made in the counter affidavit do not reflect that any disciplinary action was taken by the management, by formulation of any charges. Though, respondents 3 & 4 have submitted that after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, he was terminated from service, averments made in the counter affidavit do not reflect that any disciplinary action was taken by the management, by formulation of any charges. Thus, it is apparent from the pleading, as well as the order dated 14.10.1999 of the General Secretary, Muslim Arts College, Thiruvathamcode, the 3rd respondent that with reference to a proposed punishment, the petitioner was kept under suspension with effect from 13.10.1999, until further orders and in his place one Mr.P.Mohideen Askar Nawas has been posted temporarily, as Lecturer, Department of Zoology. 20. The contention of the petitioner that when the conviction and sentence was challenged by way of an appeal in Crl.A.No.859 of 2002 and when the suspension of sentence was intimated to the college, no departmental action was taken by the respondent and the college thought it fit not to impose any punishment, is also fortified by the letter dated 08.12.2001 of the Secretary and Correspondent, Muslim Arts College, Thiruvithamcode, the 3rd respondent, wherein only after two years, from the date of conviction, by order dated 08.12.2001, the petitioner has been terminated, with effect from 13.10.1999, from the day, on which he was placed under suspension. Thus, it is apparent that between 1989 and 2001, there was no disciplinary action and that the petitioner was only under suspension. Therefore, the contention of the respondents 3 and 4, that after providing the petitioner with an opportunity, he was terminated, is not proved. Of course, mere conviction for offences, involving moral turpitude, there is no need to conduct any detailed enquiry. 21. Pursuant to the acquittal recorded by this Court in Crl.A.No.859 of 2002 dated 15.11.2002, the petitioner has made a representation dated 13.12.2002, requesting the management to revoke the suspension and consequently, to reinstate him in service with all attendant benefits. As the said representation has not been disposed of, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.2659 of 2002. This Court by order dated 29.01.2003, has granted direction to the respondents therein, to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 13.12.2002 and to pass appropriate orders on merits. Petitioner has also been directed to furnish a copy of the said representation to the 3rd respondent. 22. Pursuant to the above, College Management committee, which met on 28.02.2003, has considered the case of the petitioner for reinstatement. Petitioner has also been directed to furnish a copy of the said representation to the 3rd respondent. 22. Pursuant to the above, College Management committee, which met on 28.02.2003, has considered the case of the petitioner for reinstatement. A decision has also been taken favourably and that the management has decided to give the petitioner a suitable chance in the next semester, as the semester was about to complete in a month's time and that no vacancy was anticipated, in such short duration. The letter dated 01.03.2003 of the General Secretary and Correspondent of the 3rd respondent college intimating the decision of the College management committee to reinstate the petitioner in service and to provide him a suitable chance is extracted hereunder. Date 01.03.2003 To Mr.X.Lazer, Xavier Cottage, Muttukadai, Thuckalay-629 175. Sir, Sub: Your Crime Case Appeal WP 2659/2003 WPMP No.3329/2003 "With reference to the judgment by the Honourable High Court of Madras dated 29.01.2003 on the above WP and also the representation made by you on 13.12.2002 to the Management. The College Management committee on 28.02.2003 considered your reinstatement in the college service was considered favourably and decided to give you suitable chance in the coming semester. Since the current semester is completing next month, and no vacancy is anticipated in this short duration. Please contact the Secretary, Muslim Arts College in next semester for suitable action. Thanking you. Yours faithfully, Secretary / Correspondent. Thereafter, the petitioner has made a representation and finding no response, he has sought for a mandamus. 23. One of the objections of the learned counsel for the 3rd and 4th respondents, to the maintainability of the writ petition is that in the absence of any challenge to the order of termination dated 08.12.2001, the relief sought for in this writ petition, directing the 3rd respondent, to allow the petitioner to rejoin duty cannot be granted and reliance placed on the decision in K.P.Selvarajan Vs. The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Madras-10 and another, reported in 2003(3) CTC 51, is not tenable, for the reason that in the above reported case, a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner therein, in Cr.No.718 of 1981 under Sections 120-B, 409, 497-A, I.P.C on the file of the Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri, which culminated into a Calendar Case No.145 of 1985. Upon trial, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, has convicted the petitioner by his judgment dated 09.02.1987 and on appeal, the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the petitioner therein, by judgment dated 04.11.1991 in Crl.A.No.22 of 1987. In the meanwhile, disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against him, by framing specific charges. A regular enquiry has been held and on receipt of the finding recorded by the enquiry officer, the petitioner has been dismissed from service. When he has sought for reinstatement contending interalia that he has been honourably acquitted, taking into consideration that the delinquent therein was inflicted with a punishment, on the basis of the finding recorded in the enquiry, and in the absence of any challenge to the said finding and the consequential penalty, this Court has held that mere acquittal by the criminal court would not confer any right on the delinquent therein to seek for reinstatement. 24. In the above reported case, firstly the punishment has been imposed on the basis of a regular departmental enquiry and not on the basis of conviction. It is well settled that simultaneous proceedings can be taken by the department and that there can be a prosecution also on the same set of allegations. Perusal of the judgment made in K.P.Selvarajan Vs. The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Madras-10 and another, reported in 2003(3) CTC 51, shows that the order of removal was not on account of conviction and therefore, in the abovesaid circumstances, this Court has held that mere acquittal in the criminal case did not give rise to any cause of action seeking for reinstatement of his service. 25. Reverting back to the case on hand, it is evident from the letter dated 08.12.2001, that the petitioner has been terminated from service with effect from 13.10.1989, the date, on which he was suspended from service pursuant to the conviction recorded by the lower Court and that, no disciplinary action has been taken by formulating any charge. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is inapposite to the facts of this case. 26. Material on record further discloses that after acquittal, the petitioner has sent a representation dated 05.06.2003, to revoke the order of suspension and sought for reinstatement. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is inapposite to the facts of this case. 26. Material on record further discloses that after acquittal, the petitioner has sent a representation dated 05.06.2003, to revoke the order of suspension and sought for reinstatement. As the said representation has not been considered, he has preferred the present writ petition against the Secretary and Principal of Muslim Arts College, Thiruvithamcode and two other official respondents. Pursuant to the direction made in W.P.No.2659 of 2003, dated 29.01.2003, the management committee on 28.02.2003 has considered the case of the petitioner favourably and decided to give suitable chance in the next semester. Hence, it is evident that already, the case of the petitioner has been considered by the Management Committee on 28.02.2003 and that there is no reason as to deny reinstatement of the petitioner 27. Admittedly, the 3rd respondent college is recognised by the Government and the provisions of the Tamilnadu Private Colleges (Regulations) Act, 1976 are applicable. Section 14 of the Tamilnadu Private Colleges (Regulations) Act, reads as follows: "14. Functions of the College committee and the responsibility of educational agency under the Act subject to the provision of this Act.-- (1) Subject to the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder, the college committee shall have the following functions, namely:-- (a) to carry on the general administration of the private college excluding the properties and funds of the private college; (b) to appoint teachers and other persons of the private college, fix their pay and allowances and define their duties and the conditions of their service; and (c) to take disciplinary action against teachers and other persons of the private college. (2) The educational agency shall be bound by anything done by the college committee in the discharge of the functions of that committee under this Act. (3) For the purposes of this Act, any decision or action taken by the college committee in respect of any matter over which the college committee has jurisdiction shall be deemed to be the decision or action taken by the educational agency. 28. As per Section 19 of the said Act, "19. (3) For the purposes of this Act, any decision or action taken by the college committee in respect of any matter over which the college committee has jurisdiction shall be deemed to be the decision or action taken by the educational agency. 28. As per Section 19 of the said Act, "19. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or suspension of teachers or other persons employed in private colleges.--- (1) Subject to any rule that may be made in this behalf, no teacher or other person employed in any private college shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank nor shall his appointment be otherwise terminated except with the prior approval of the competent authority. (2) Where the proposal to dismiss, remove or reduce in rank or otherwise terminate the appointment of any teacher or other person employed in any private college is communicated to the competent authority, that authority shall, if it is satisfied that there are adequate and reasonable grounds for such proposal, approve such dismissal, removal, reduction in rank or termination of appointment. (3) (a) No teacher or other person employed in any private college shall be placed under suspension, except when an inquiry into the gross misconduct, within the meaning of the Code of Conduct prescribed under sub-section (1) of section 18, of such teacher or other person is contemplated. (b) no such suspension shall remain in force for more than a period of two months from the date of suspension and if such inquiry is not completed within that period such teacher or other person shall, without prejudice to the inquiry, be deemed to have been restored as teacher or other employee: Provided that the competent authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extent the said period of two months, for a further period not exceeding two months, if, in the opinion of such competent authority, the inquiry could not be completed within the said period of two months for reasons directly attributable to such teacher or other persons.” 29. Tamilnadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976, have been framed in G.O.Ms.No.1285, Education, dated 22.06.1979. As per Rule 9 of the said rules "9. Secretary of the Committee.--- (1) The educational agency shall nominate one of its representatives as Secretary of the committee: Provided that it shall be open to the educational agency to nominate the Principal as Secretary of the committee. (2) ...... As per Rule 9 of the said rules "9. Secretary of the Committee.--- (1) The educational agency shall nominate one of its representatives as Secretary of the committee: Provided that it shall be open to the educational agency to nominate the Principal as Secretary of the committee. (2) ...... (3) The Secretary shall function for and on behalf of the committee and educational agency. (4) The Secretary shall act according to the resolutions passed at the meeting of the Committee. (5) ...... (6) ......" 30. Reading of the above said statutory provisions, makes it clear that no teacher or other person employed in any private college shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank nor shall his/her appointment be otherwise terminated except with the prior approval of the competent authority. 31. Though conviction recorded by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge on 29.09.1999, in the criminal case is the basis for terminating the services of the petitioner, done after two years, vide order dated 08.12.2001, the averments made in the counter affidavit, do not disclose that the management, had obtained prior approval of the competent authority. What is stated at para 4 of the counter affidavit is that after following the procedures established by law and after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, the petitioner has been terminated from service on the basis of conviction of rigorous imprisonment, has not been elaborated, as to whether the mandate of law, as provided for under Section 19 of the Tamilnadu Private Colleges (Regulations) Act, 1976, has been followed. Though, the contention of the management that the conviction recorded by the criminal Court warranted termination of service of the petitioner could be accepted, even then, statute requires that there should be prior approval from the competent authority. As per Rule 9(4) of the Tamilnadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976 the Secretary shall act according to the resolution passed at the meeting of the committee and he cannot, on his own take any decision, regarding disciplinary matters. When the law contemplates a thing to be done in a particular manner, there cannot be any deviation. Reference can be made to the following few decisions. (a) Though in Ayyan Nadar Janaki Ammal College Vs. When the law contemplates a thing to be done in a particular manner, there cannot be any deviation. Reference can be made to the following few decisions. (a) Though in Ayyan Nadar Janaki Ammal College Vs. A.Pandian & two others, reported in 1996 II CTC 337, the issue was whether a simple order of termination passed by the above college was vitiated, this court after considering a catena of decisions held that the order of termination in violation of the provisions of the Act is null and void and it has no effect at all. It is further held that prior approval of the competent authority is necessary before putting an end to the services of a teacher. While arriving at the abovesaid conclusion, this Court has also considered the following decisions:- (i) K.Rajeswari vs. T.P.Chandru Vs. E.S.I. Corporation () Ltd., and another reported in 1997 TNLJ 537. (ii) R.Jesudasan vs. K.Selvaraj reported in 1989 (I) LLJ 470 Rajaji Middle School Vs. Mariapushpam, reported in 1987 WLR 333. (iv) M.Committee Vs. S.D.Gupta reported in 1974 ALJ 465 (v) Prabhu Narain Vs. Deputy Director, Education, Varanasi, reported in 1977 Lab.I.C. 1095 (vi) Rama Bahadoor and Another v. Tungabhadra Sugar Works (P) Ltd, reported in 1979 S.L.J. 489 (b) In R.V.Thevar Memorial Girls High School, Cholapuram, Kamarajar District, represented by its Secretary V.Ramar Vs. the Director of School Education, Chennai, reported in 2002 (4) CTC 129 , a Division Bench of this Court considered a similar issue arising out of Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulations) Act, 1973 read with rules 1974, and the issue was whether, an order of termination passed without prior approval of the competent authority could be sustained in law. After considering the statutory provisions, Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulations) Act, read with rule 17 of the rules and Ayyan Nadar Janaki Ammal College's case (cited supra) and other decisions, at paragraph 28 of the judgment, the Bench held that “it is clear that the appellant Management has not obtained any prior approval which is mandatory under the Act 1973 for dispensing with the services of the 4th respondent and that therefore such an order of termination cannot stand in the eye of law. So saying, the Division Bench refused to interfere with the order passed by the educational authorities directing the appellant Management therein to permit the teacher to continue in service. 32. So saying, the Division Bench refused to interfere with the order passed by the educational authorities directing the appellant Management therein to permit the teacher to continue in service. 32. The decisions made in Ayyan Nadar Janaki Ammal College's case and R.V.Thevar Memorial Girls High School's case (cited supra) squarely apply to the facts of this case, in so far as the fact that the order of termination of the petitioner has been made without adhering to the mandatory requirements and no contra materials have been produced by the respondents 3 and 4. 33. Thus, it could be seen that the order of termination without the sanction of the competent authority cannot be said to be in accordance with the statutory provisions. When the college committee on 28.02.2003 has already decided to consider the case of the petitioner for reinstatement favourably and that such reinstatement was postponed only due to the then prevailing situation, that the semester was due to end next month, and when no vacancy was anticipated within a short duration, it is not known as to how the Secretary and Correspondent of the 3rd respondent college, without the authority of the college committee, could go back on the assurance and contend that the petitioner is not entitled to seek for reinstatement. 34. No material evidence has been placed before this Court to prove that the management or the college committee, has taken a different decision, not to reinstate the petitioner. As stated supra, the Secretary / Correspondent of the College, has no right or authority under law to take a different view than the college or the management committee, which is the only authority empowered to take disciplinary action against teachers and other persons in the private colleges. Any decision or action taken by the college committee in respect of any matter over which the college committee has jurisdiction shall be deemed to be the decision or action taken by the educational agency and it is binding on the Secretary of the college. 35. Any decision or action taken by the college committee in respect of any matter over which the college committee has jurisdiction shall be deemed to be the decision or action taken by the educational agency and it is binding on the Secretary of the college. 35. The objection of the learned counsel for the respondent that in the absence of challenge to the order of termination, no writ would lie for reinstatement, also cannot be countenanced for the reason that when the college management committee, which met on 28.02.2003 has already considered the question of reinstating the petitioner in service and taken a decision favourably to give him a suitable chance in the next semester, there was no need for the petitioner to seek for quashing of order of termination. Having assured the petitioner that his case would be considered favourably, it is not open to the Secretary and correspondent of the Muslim Arts College, Thiruvithamcode to turn around and object to the maintainability of the writ petition. The objections made in the counter affidavit, do not reflect bonafides on the part of the 3rd respondent. It is not open to approbate and reprobate. 36. The next objection of the 3rd respondent College relates to the involvement of the petitioner in certain offences touching moral turpitude. An apprehension has been raised in the mind of the 3rd respondent college that the person alleged to have committed certain offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as well as, for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 498(A) of IPC does not deserve reinstatement, even after acquittal by this Court. There is no hard and fast rule that a person who has been implicated in a criminal case, can once and for all, be denied of an opportunity to work in any educational institution. The judgment of this Court in Crl.A.No.859/02 dated 15.11.2002, was very much available on the date, when the representation of the petitioner dated 13.12.2002 submitted to the management was considered, by the committee on 28.02.2003. Only after perusal of the judgment and deliberations, the committee has decided to give the petitioner a chance to serve in their institution. Further, perusal of the counter affidavit also shows that though, the acquittal was decided on various grounds, inter alia, this Court has also taken note of unsatisfactory evidence let in by the prosecution for recording acquittal. Only after perusal of the judgment and deliberations, the committee has decided to give the petitioner a chance to serve in their institution. Further, perusal of the counter affidavit also shows that though, the acquittal was decided on various grounds, inter alia, this Court has also taken note of unsatisfactory evidence let in by the prosecution for recording acquittal. In addition to the above, an affidavit has been filed by the petitioner stating that the dispute between himself and his wife is settled on payment of Rs.1,50,000/-. When this Court has recorded the acquittal, based on unsatisfactory evidence and incidentally, took into consideration, the settlement arrived at between the spouses, it is not open to the Secretary and Correspondent, to contend that it was not an honourable acquittal. Even otherwise, when the committee has taken a decision on 28.02.2003, the Secretary and Correspondent of the 3rd respondent, has no right under the statutory provisions to ignore the same and oppose the relief sought for in this writ petition on the grounds of involvement of the petitioner in offences in which, he has been acquitted. 37. As stated supra, no material has been placed before this Court that the termination of the petitioner, was in accordance with the statutory provision, Section 19 of the Act. In the above said circumstances, this Court is of the view that the 3rd respondent, has failed to act as per the decisions of the Committee and as per the provisions of Tamilnadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976. When failure to discharge, statutory duty is apparent, mandamus has to be issued. 38. Accordingly, a direction is issued to the respondents 3 & 4 to permit the petitioner to rejoin duty as Assistant Professor (Zoology) Department. The issue of settling the period out of employment from the date of suspension, to the date of termination of services and till the petitioner is reinstated in his service, has to be decided by the respondents 3 & 4, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner. The abovesaid exercise has to be done within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 39. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, as indicated above. No Costs.