M.Ravi, S/O.Murugan, v. The Registrar,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated:12.07.2016

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN Writ Petition No.23773 of 2016 and W.M.P.Nos.20364 to 20366 of 2016 M.Ravi

...Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Registrar, Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar.

2. The Director, Directorate of Distant Education, Annamalai University.

...Respondents

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records in connection with the proceedings of the first respondent in University Order No.422/2014 (C) dated 2.6.2014 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all continuity of service benefits.

For Petitioner ..Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy, Sr.Counsel for M/s. M.Sriram For Respondents..Mr.R.Suresh Kumar

O R D E R

The petitioner was working as a Tamil Lecturer in the Respondent Annamalai University under the Distant Education Programme at Thiruvannamalai. The petitioner was also a trustee in Maharishi Trust. There was a problem between the trustee when one of the trustees named Mahendran started to sell the properties of the trust to third parties without the consent of the other trustees. A suit was also filed and the same was dismissed. Thereafter, one of the trustees viz., Arunachalam died in an accident on 19.05.2014. The wife of the deceased filed a complaint before the Police Station stating that she had suspicion that the petitioner would be responsible for the death of her husband. Initially the police registered a First

Information Report in Crime No.105/2014 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. on 20.05.2014 and thereafter, the said case was altered in to 120(B), 201 and 302 of IPC. The police had sent a report to the University. Based on the report, the University had suspended the petitioner on vide Order No.422/2014(C) dated 02.06.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner had obtained bail in the year 2015. Thereafter, the petitioner gave a representation dated 23.12.2015 to the Respondent to revoke the order of suspension. The Respondents rejected the representation of the petitioner on 15.02.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner once again gave a representation dated 03.05.2016 to the Respondent to revoke the order of suspension. The same has not been considered by the Respondents till date. Aggrieved against the inaction on the part of the Respondents and inordinate delay in disposing the criminal trial, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition.

2. After some elaborate arguments, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would only state that the petitioner may be permitted to make a detailed representation to the Syndicate of the Respondent University which is the competent authority to revoke the order of suspension, especially in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India [(2015) 7 scc 291]. Therefore, he wants to make a detailed representation to the Syndicate of the Respondent University and it may be directed consider the representation of the petitioner at the earliest.

3. In Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India [(2015) 7 scc 291], the Supreme Court has held as follows:- "12. Protracted periods of suspension, repeated renewal thereof, have regrettably become the norm and not the exception that they ought to be. The suspended person suffering the ignominy of insinuations, the scorn of society and the derision of his department, has to endure this excruciation even before he is formally charged with some mis-demeanour, indiscretion or offence. His torment is his knowledge that if and when charged, it will inexorably take an inordinate time for the inquisition or inquiry to come to its culmination, that is, to determine his innocence or iniquity. Much too often this has now become an accompaniment to retirement. Indubitably, the sophist will nimbly counter that our Constitution does not explicitly, the guarantee either the right to a speedy trial even to the incarcerated, or assume the presumption of innocence to the accused. But we must remember that both these factors are legal ground norms,

are inextricable tenets of Common Law Jurisprudence, antedating even the Magna Carta of 1215, which assures that -- "We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either justice or right."In similar vein the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.

20. ..... we are spurred to extrapolate the quintessence of the proviso to Section 167(2) CrPC, 1973 to moderate suspension orders in cases of departmental/disciplinary enquiries also. It seems to us that if Parliament considered it necessary that a person be released from incarceration after the expiry of 90 days even though accused of commission of the most heinous crimes, a fortiori suspension should not be continued after the expiry of the similar period especially when a memorandum of charge/chargesheet has not been served on the suspended person. It is true that the proviso to Section 167(2) CrPC postulates personal freedom, but respect and preservation of human dignity as well as the right to a speedy trial should also be placed on the same pedestal.

21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension....."

4. Considering the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India [(2015) 7 scc 291], it is just and necessary to direct the petitioner to make a detailed representation to the Syndicate of the Respondent University.

5. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to make a detailed representation to the Syndicate of the Respondent University within one week and on such representation, the Syndicate of the Respondent University is directed to place the same in the next Syndicate meeting and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

6. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.20364 to 20366 of 2016 are closed. gr.

Sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar To

1. The Registrar, Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar.

2. The Director, Directorate of Distant Education, Annamalai University.

+ 1 cc to M/s.M.Sriram, Advocate Sr 38936 + 1 cc to Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, Advocate Sr 38588 KR/26/7/16 W.P.No.23773 of 2016