This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the charge memo dated 13.03.2017 and the consequential termination order dated 11.04.2017, issued by the third respondent and also direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue her B.Sc. Nursing Course at the third respondent College.
2.The case of the petitioner is that she is studying third year B.Sc. Nursing course in the third respondent college and since her mother made a complaint to higher officials with regard to the illegalities committed by the third respondent college, the Principal of the third respondent college issued a charge memo, dated 13.03.2017, levelling three charges against her in respect of fees and the complaint sent by her mother, during pendency of the writ petition filed by her, seeking direction to Indian Overseas Bank for granting educational loan. According to the petitioner, the third respondent without conducting any enquiry, passed the order of termination, dated 11.04.2017. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court with the aforesaid prayer.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that since her mother made a complaint against the third respondent college, the Principal of the third respondent college issued the impugned charge memo and the petitioner appeared before the college on several occasions for enquiry, but without conducting any enquiry, the impugned termination order came to be passed and therefore the impugned charge memo as well as termination order are liable to be set aside.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner, with the support of her mother, levelled false allegation against the third respondent institution and also communicated various letters to the educational authorities of the State, which caused damage to the image of the third respondent institution, for which, a notice calling for her explanation was served and the petitioner miserably failed to comply with such direction and hence, finding no other way, the impugned order of termination came to be passed.
5.Heard both sides.
6.The main grievance expressed on the side of the petitioner is that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order of termination. Considering the factual matrix, this Court is of the view that one more opportunity of hearing should be given to the petitioner to put forth her case and therefore, the impugned termination order dated 11.04.2017 issued by the third respondent is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the third respondent for fresh consideration and the third respondent shall fix a specific date for enquiry, on which date the petitioner is directed to file her objections along with documents in support of her case and on such filing, the third respondent shall pass appropriate orders on its own merit and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks thereafter.
7.The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
To The Director of Medical Education, Kilpaik, Chennai.
.