Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. 2. The petitioner, a Professor at Agronomic Research Station, was initially placed under suspension through Exhibit P6 on the ground of certain misconduct, since the University decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings. Owing to subsequent developments, in course of time, through Exhibit P2 dated 29.11.2012, the respondent University dropped the proceedings, subject to the ratification of the Executive Committee. Though the Executive Committee in its meeting held on 21.02.2014 agreed to ratify the same, but as a matter of abundant caution constituted another Committee before taking a final decision. In turn, the Committee so constituted submitted a report on 25.03.2014 holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner could not be substantiated. In the light of Exhibit P4 report of the Committee, the petitioner is said to have made Exhibit P5 representation before the respondent University to expedite the process of dropping the disciplinary proceedings, lest he should suffer adversely. Questioning the in-action of the respondent University in implementing its own decision, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has already suffered on account of pendency of the proceedings. Citing as an example, the learned counsel has submitted that on earlier two occasions the petitioner could not attend the overseas Conferences as he could not obtain passport owing to the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University has not disputed the facts of the matter. He has however submitted that the respondent University will be taking the final decision in the next meeting of the Executive committee. To a query from this Court when that is to take place, the learned counsel has submitted that the Executive Committee may meet in two months' time.
5. Be that as it may, since the University has observed that there is no material against the petitioner and that it is not advisable to proceed against him, I do not see any issue holding the University back from implementing its decision. Appreciably even the Executive Committee before taking a decision appointed another Committee which again returned the same findings that no material was available against the petitioner. Under these circumstances, making the petitioner suffer on account of delay in taking a decision by the University may not meet the ends of justice.
6. In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this Court disposes of the present writ petition with a direction to the respondent University to take a decision at the earliest concerning the dropping of proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE DMR/-