S.Senthamarai v. The Vice-Chancellor

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 03.07.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN W.P.No. 38880 of 2016 S.Senthamarai ... Petitioner ..Vs..

1.

The Vice Chancellor The Registrar Thiru A.Panneerselvam Associate Professor Department of Zoology ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's complaint/representation dated 03.06.2016 and

constitute a Committee to inquire into the petitioner's complaint against the third respondent and take necessary Departmental action against him in accordance with law.

*** For Petitioner :: Mr. A.Arun for Mr.S.Sathia Chandran For RR 1 & 2 :: Mr. M.C.Swamy For 3rd Respondent :: Mr.V.Parthiban

ORDER

The petitioner had qualified herself in Ph.D., in Zoology. The third respondent appears to lead a very interesting life. He is categorised as an Associate Professor in Department of Zoology at Thiruvalluvar University at Vellore. He was the External Examiner for the petitioner when she was trying to get qualified in the Doctorate Degree. He then also extended his service by informing her that she could apply for an Assistant Professor post in any one of the Colleges run by Pachaiyappa's Trust Board. But this offer came with a rider, that the petitioner should part with a sum of Rs.25/- lakhs to the third respondent as illegal gratification.

The petitioner had applied for the post and also participated in the interview. The demand of Rs.25/- lakhs was then raised. If the petitioner had been duty conscious, she should have been diligent at that particular point of time itself. However, she had apparently paid the said sum of Rs.25/- lakhs, though it is contended that it was not paid directly to the third respondent but was paid to his friend.

The petitioner having paid the said sum of Rs.25/- lakhs directly or indirectly believing that it would reach the hands of the third respondent was dismayed at finding that she was not selected for the post of Assistant Professor in any one of the Panchaiyappa's Trust Board Colleges. She then woke up to reality and filed the present Writ Petition seeking a Mandamus against the first and second respondents to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the third respondent in this regard. 4.

The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent states that the third respondent was under suspension for other complaints against him. Though there is no clarity, it is also informed that he has been dismissed from service.

5.

I would direct the disciplinary proceedings which had been initiated to proceed further in accordance with law, if the petitioner had not been actually dismissed.

6.

Unfortunately, the learned counsel for the first and second respondents sought time, but this is an issue which has to be dealt with only by the disciplinary authority.

7.

The Writ Petition stands disposed of with a direction to the said authority to proceed further with the disciplinary proceedings against the third respondent, if he had not been dismissed already, on which aspect there is not much clarity. No costs.

03.07.2023 vsg Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking / Non Speaking Order To 1.

The Vice Chancellor

The Registrar Thiru A.Panneerselvam Associate Professor Department of Zoology

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J., vsg W.P.No. 38880 of 2016 03.07.2023