Disciplinary Proceedings Initiated During Service Can Continue After Retirement If Permitted By Service Rules: Madras HC

Background Facts

The appellant was working as Associate Professor in the Department of Chemistry at Sri Paramakalyani College. A memorandum of charge was issued against him on 30.08.2011 alleging that he had addressed girl students with sexually coloured remarks and inappropriate behaviour. He asked them unrelated questions, humiliated them by asking them to stand outside the class, deliberately failed students with vengeance. He helped a few monetarily and asked them to meet him in a lodge to repay the amount. Further, that his conversations with girl students were tinged with double entendre with sexual overtones.

After following due procedure, the charges were held proved. He was punished with reduction in rank from Associate Professor to Assistant Professor. The professor filed a writ petition challenging the punishment. A Single Judge directed the respondent to take a decision on the proposal dated 29.10.2011 submitted by the College Management and to hear the professor before taking a decision.

Challenging this order, the professor filed the Writ Appeal. Subsequently, the Regional Joint Director granted approval of the punishment, which was challenged by the professor in another petition.

It was argued by the professor that the order imposing punishment was perverse since the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the guidelines issued in Vishaka judgment which required a Complaint Committee to be formed, headed by a woman, with half the quorum being women and an independent observer.

It was further argued that the College had no authority to impose punishment after permitting the professor to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation, as there was no employer-employee relationship thereafter. The professor also contended that he had an unblemished record and the complaints against him by the girl students were motivated.

Further the appellant relied upon the judgment in S. Andiyannan vs The Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies wherein it was held that disciplinary proceedings can be continued after retirement only subject to applicable statutory rules or bye-laws. The professor also relied on Dev Prakash Tewari vs Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Service Board to contend that disciplinary proceedings could be continued after retirement only when the authority was vested with power to continue the same. Further reliance was placed on State Bank of India vs Navin Kumar Sinha wherein disciplinary proceedings initiated after superannuation were held to be void.

On the other hand, it was argued by the College that the professor had participated in the enquiry and had been granted complete and full opportunity at each stage, permitted to cross examine the girl students. It was further contended that the Writ Appeal had become redundant since the Joint Director of Collegiate Education had examined the facts and granted approval of the punishment.

It was further argued that the authority to continue disciplinary proceedings would depend on the rules governing the employment. It was submitted that Section 18 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 provided that every teacher employed in a private college shall be governed by such code of conduct.

Findings and Observations of the Court

It was observed by the Division Bench that the contention of appellant that the enquiry had not been conducted in accordance with Vishaka guidelines was not taken before the Single Judge. It was observed that the professor had not raised this ground either in the earlier Writ Petition. It was further observed that an independent Enquiry Officer had been appointed who conducted the enquiry and granted full opportunity to the professor. Further that the report analysing the evidence did not suffer from any irregularity and the findings were not perverse.

It was held by the Division Bench that the College had every right to continue with the disciplinary proceedings even after the professor attained the age of superannuation. It was observed that the disciplinary proceedings had been initiated nearly three years prior to retirement and the proposed punishment had also been intimated three years prior to retirement.

The case of State Bank of India vs Navin Kumar Sinha was distinguished by the Bench. It was noted that in Navin case disciplinary proceedings had been initiated after superannuation, whereas in the appellant's case the proceedings had been initiated and concluded prior to retirement.

It was further held that the 1976 Act is comprehensive in nature. Therefore, against any imposition of punishment, an appeal provision is available under Section 20 and a second appeal under Section 21, with a further right to file a revision before the Government. The professor had not taken recourse to any such alternative remedy but had filed the Writ Petition. It was held that the professor had deliberately taken a decision not to file an appeal.

With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Appeal filed by the professor was dismissed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : Dr. S. Ponnusamy vs. The Director, The Directorate of Collegiate Education

Case No. : W.A(MD)No.1523 of 2019 and W.P(MD)No.14130 of 2019 and W.M.P.(MD)No.10597 of 2019

Counsel for the Appellant : V.Prakash Senior Counsel M/s.Ajmal Associates

Counsel for the Respondents : K.K.Udayakumar Government Advocate (civil), Krishna Srinivas Senior Counsel for M/s.K.S.Law Chambers