Ext.P2 order issued by the second respondent by which the petitioner was permanently debarred from examination duties of the University is under challenge.
2. Presently the petitioner is working as Principal of MES College, Ponnani. Prior to that, he was working as Principal of MES College, Marampally. The petitioner claims that he has a distinguished academic record as narrated in paragraph (2) of the writ petition. The petitioner further alleges that in an accident involving certain students, he had to a file a criminal complaint before the Police. It is stated that in April, 2012, the students who were not having enough attendance prescribed by the University for making them eligible for writing the examination, gate crashed into the Principals office and snatched away the hall tickets using criminal force.
3. It is alleged that the investigation in that crime is going on. While so, a committee was constituted at the instance of certain syndicate members of the 1st respondent University in order to proceed against the petitioner for alleged failure in not bringing to the notice of the University, the deficiency of attendance of the students to the notice of the University. She further alleges that the first respondent, on the basis of an enquiry report, passed Ext.P2 order inflicting punishment of removal from examiner-ship. According to the petitioner, she was not given any notice regarding the said enquiry. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.
4. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have contended that though the petitioner has reported that few students, who were not eligible to attend the exam due to shortage of attendance, forcefully demanded the hall tickets on 02.04.2012, the said letter along with the attendance details of 62 candidates were received in the University two weeks after the incident. It is stated that on receipt of the letter from the petitioner, the Vice Chancellor appointed a committee to conduct enquiry into the matter as per Ext.R2(b). It is also alleged that the petitioner was given notice of the enquiry which was conducted on 14.09.2012, 20.09.2012 and 25.10.2012 and she was given an opportunity to peruse the evidence given in this case. The committee examined all relevant records and submitted report on 12.11.2012. It is stated that the petitioner was given to explain the happenings with regard to the conduct of examinations on 02.04.2012 and she put the blame on her colleagues and apologized for the mistakes committed by her and her colleagues. According to the respondent University, it has not done anything to tarnish the petitioner's reputation. It is submitted that debarring is the inevitable consequence of carelessness of the petitioner in her capacity as the Chief Superintendent of the examination.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent University.
6. The petitioner on 02.04.2012 made a complaint to the Police against a group of students who according to her, using criminal force, gate crashed and snatched away the hall tickets from her office. Admittedly, the students were not eligible to appear for the examination since there was deficiency of attendance, as the respondent University had prescribed minimum attendance required for enabling them to appear for the examination. The petitioner alleges that the intimation sent by the college to the University showing the details of attendance of students were over looked when hall tickets were issued by the University. However, the stand taken by the respondent University is that the petitioner gave the list of students not having sufficient attendance reached the University only after the alleged incident.
7. The petitioner further alleges that when the fact that the students who were not having sufficient attendance were over looked and hall tickets were issued by the University was brought to the attention of the University, she was required not to issue hall tickets to those students and accordingly, she withheld to issue of such hall tickets. This resulted in the snatching away of the hall tickets using criminal force by the students.
8. It appears from Ext.P1 that timely action was taken by the petitioner in reporting the matter to the Police. It is true that a committee was constituted to enquire into the hall ticket snatching episode. A report was obtained and on the basis of the same, Ext.P2 order was issued. It is relevant to note that the first respondent University is a statutory body and procedures are prescribed for initiating disciplinary proceedings against delinquent employees.
9. Here, the basic requirement of putting the report to the petitioner seeking her explanation and then taking a considered decision has been violated. Statute 75 of the M.G.University Statutes, 1997 lays down the procedure for imposing penalties in a disciplinary action against a teacher of a private college and Statute 76 deals with the procedure for imposing minor penalties. The aforesaid statute provides for an enquiry to be held in accordance with the provisions of the Statue after communicating the charges to the teacher together with statement of allegations giving a reasonable time to the teacher to submit written statement.
10. It is crucial to note that in the instant case, no such memo of charges has been served on the petitioner. The statute also provides for furnishing copy of enquiry report of the teacher and also the action proposed and orders could be passed only thereafter. The teacher should be given an opportunity for showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against her/him.
12. Ext.R2(b) order issued for and on behalf of the Controller of Examination reveals that on seeking clarification from the Examination Legal Section it was suggested that the examination taken by the delinquent students unlawfully could be cancelled by the University and it was in that circumstances, an enquiry into the matter has been sought for. Ext.R2(a) communication issued for and on behalf of the Controller of Examination to the petitioner would indicate that the petitioner did not ask to appear before the enquiry committee which has been constituted to enquire into the shortage of attendance of students. It was also stated in Ext.R2(a) that the enquiry committee has decided to hear the petitioner also on that issue.
13. It is crystal clear that the petitioner has not been issued with memo of charges contained in the statement of allegations. In the so-called enquiry conducted, certain questions were put to the petitioner and she had given certain answers also the compilation of which is produced as Ext.R2(e) by the petitioner. But, the same cannot be a substitute for an explanation as envisaged by the Statute. It is curious to note that while in Ext.P2 the committee had recommended to debar the petitioner from all examination duties, they have recommended that the results of the students which were withheld for want of attendance be released.
14. On a consideration of the entire materials now placed on record, this Court is of the definite view that the entire exercise culminated in Ext.P2 amounts to misuse of office and abuse of authority, and it has been resulted in violation of the petitioner's valuable rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India.
Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P2 order is quashed. It is hereby declared that the petitioner is entitled to continue as examiner in the examination conducted by the respondent University.
krj Sd/-
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE /True Copy/ P.A to Judge