SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

About madras high court judgement imposing penalty of rs.10,00,000 to the university of madras. Judge R SubramaniyamTHE HONOURABLE  MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN Writ Petition No.9304 of 2022 and WMP No. 9063 of 2022 Dr. S. Subramanian For Petitioner           : Mr. Satish Parasaran, Senior Counsel    for Mr. R.Parthasarathy                 For Respondents      : Mr. A.S.Vijayaraghavan, for R1    Mr.Srinath  Sridevan, for R2    Mr.K.Suresh,    Government Advocate, for R3 & R4 O R D E R

by ·

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on

12.12.2022

 Delivered on     21.12.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE  MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

Writ Petition No.9304 of 2022 and WMP No. 9063 of 2022

Dr. S. Subramanian

Professor (Retired)

Department of Biochemistry,

University of Madras

Guindy Campus, Chennai 25.           ..Petitioner

Vs.

  1. The Registrar

University of Madras,     Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

  1. V. Elangovan

Professor and Head

Department of Biochemistry,

University of Madras,

Guindy Campus,  Chennai 600 025.

  1. The Principal Secretary and

Member-Syndicate, University of Madras,

Higher Education Department,     Secretariat, Fort St. George,     Chennai 600 009.

  1. The Science City,

Rep by its Vice-Chairman,

Gandhi Mandapam Road,

Chennai 600 025.                                 …Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the first and second respondents to retrieve the application (in triplicate) dated 23.12.2017 along with all original certificates and other original documents for consideration to the Award of Tamil Nadu Senior Scientist Award -2016 submitted by the petitioner to the second respondent for his endorsement and onward transmission to the Vice-Chairman, Science City (fourth respondent) through the first respondent on 23.12.2017 within a time as may be fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner           : Mr. Satish Parasaran, Senior Counsel    for Mr. R.Parthasarathy

For Respondents      : Mr. A.S.Vijayaraghavan, for R1

Mr.Srinath  Sridevan, for R2

Mr.K.Suresh,

Government Advocate, for R3 & R4

O R D E R

The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus directing the first and

second respondents to retrieve his application dated 23.12.2017 filed in triplicate along with all original certificates and documents to be forwarded for consideration to the award of Tamil Nadu Senior Scientist 2016.

  1. 2. According to the petitioner, he had submitted the application in

triplicate along with original certificates and documents for the award of Tamil Nadu Senior Scientist 2016 on 23.12.2017 to be forwarded to the fourth respondent through proper channel. The application and the connected records were submitted to the Head of the Department of Biochemistry, University of Madras on 23.12.2017.   He in turn will have to forward the same to the Science City through the Registrar of the Madras University, viz. the first respondent.

  1. . The petitioner narrates as to how he has been forced to knock

at the doors of this Court on several occasions even for trivial issues due to the grouse nurtured by the second respondent against him.  I do not think, I should dwell upon those allegations and counter allegations in view of the narrow scope of the prayer in the Writ Petition.

  • During December 2017, the Vice Chairman, Science City, Government of Tamil Nadu, viz. the fourth respondent herein, had issued a notification inviting applications from eligible faculty members for the Tamil Nadu Senior Scientist Award 2016. The last date for receipt of the filled in applications by the fourth respondent was fixed as 12.01.2018.

Considering himself to be eligible for the said award, the petitioner made an Application on 23.12.2017, along with the Demand Draft for Rs.200/- drawn in favour of the Vice Chairman, Science City, Government of Tamil Nadu.  The application was submitted to the second respondent, since he is the Head of the Department of Biochemistry, on 23.12.2017 with request to forward the same to the fourth respondent through proper channel i.e. through the first respondent.  It is stated that he has also submitted his

Original Mark Statements and Degree Certificates for verification.

  • According to the petitioner, the second respondent did not

take any action on his application and the same was not forwarded to the fourth respondent.  Therefore, the petitioner has sent an email on 02.01.2018 to the first respondent, viz. the Registrar, University of Madras, pointing out that he has filed the application with the third respondent on 23.12.2017 and requesting them to take suitable action for forwarding the application to the fourth respondent.  This was followed by another representation dated 18.01.2018. The petitioner came to know that his application was not even forwarded and it was retained in the University itself, when the awards were announced.

  • On 20.02.2018 and 12.03.2018, the petitioner wrote to the

fourth respondent requesting for information pertaining to the receipt of his application.  He was informed that his application was not received vide letter dated 16.03.2018. The petitioner again wrote to the first and second respondents on 02.07.2018 to retrieve the copies of the application along with the original certificates.  A copy of the representation was also sent to the Vice Chancellor of the University.  Since there was no reply, the petitioner was forced to invoke the Right to Information Act and seek information on 26.07.2018.  In response to the query made under the Right to Information Act, the University replied confirming that the application was not received by the Registrar’s office. The petitioner moved this Court in WP No.31922 of 2018 seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representations dated 02.07.2018 and pass orders.

  • In the counter affidavit filed on 14.07.2021 in WP No.31922

of 2018, it was stated that the University has already sent replies on 31.08.2018. This Court was pleased to close the said Writ Petition.  A Review Petition was filed in R.A.No.101 of 2021 by the petitioner seeking review of the order dated 14.07.2021.  While dismissing the Review, this Court had granted liberty to the petitioner for seeking return of the original testimonials. Hence the petitioner has come up with the instant Writ Petition seeking the above prayer.

  1. The Writ Petition is resisted by the respondents contending that

in view of the dismissal of the earlier Writ Petition, this Writ Petition is not maintainable. The Registrar, viz. the first respondent has filed a counter affidavit largely dealing with the dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent. As I have already observed these averments in paragraphs 1 to 13 of the counter affidavit are foreign to the scope of the very Writ Petition.  Adverting to the prayer in the Writ Petition, the first respondent has stated that an application was handed over along with the Demand Draft on 23.12.2017 and the same was forwarded to the then Registrar on 27.12.2017.  He would also state that he is informed that no original document was submitted by the petitioner.  It is also claimed that the application was also not accompanied by any other documents or credentials as claimed by the petitioner.

  • The first respondent would further state that whatever was

handed over to the second respondent on 23.12.2017 were forwarded to the then Registrar on 27.12.2017 and he would also plead on behalf of the second respondent to the effect that the job of the second respondent ended with forwarding the papers to the first respondent.  It is also claimed that the petitioner left three volumes of some copies of papers in the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Department at Guindy Campus without any instructions.  The receipt of those three volumes of papers was not acknowledged by any of the staff.  He would therefore seek dismissal of the Writ Petition.

  • The third respondent has filed a separate counter affidavit. He would also claim that no enclosures were submitted and the application was forwarded to the Registrar on 27.12.2017 itself. He would accuse the petitioner are preparing a paper trail by making frivolous representations with an intention to create an impression that his papers have not been returned to him.
  1. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder largely reiterating the

averments made in the Writ Petition and denying the claims in the counter affidavits.

  1. I have heard Mr.Satish Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel

appearing       for                    Mr.R.Parthasarathy,                       for                       the                                petitioner,

Mr.A.S.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent,

Mr.Srinath Sridevan, learned counsel for the second respondent and Mr.K.Suresh, learned Government Advocate appearing for the third & fourth respondents.

  1. A perusal of the affidavits and counter affidavits would show

that all is not well with the petitioner as well as the University.  There is mutual distrust and animosity.  It is very unfortunate that the persons holding very high position and very well educated academicians should behave in the manner in which the petitioner as well as the respondents 1 and 2 have behaved.   It is the specific case of the petitioner that he handed over the papers on 23.12.2017.  The fact that the petitioner has handed over the application on 23.12.2017 is not denied. It is claimed that the petitioner has not submitted the enclosures.

  1. I am unable to accept the claim of the respondents that the

connected papers have not been handed over on 23.12.2017 along with the application.  In fact the application dated 23.12.2017 bears the endorsement of the second respondent to the effect that it has been forwarded on 27.12.2017. On 02.01.2018, the petitioner has sent a mail to the first respondent specifically stating the he had submitted all the original documents to the Department for verification.   This mail is also forwarded to the Vice Chancellor of the University, there has been no reply either from the first respondent or the Vice Chancellor of the University. On 19.01.2018, the petitioner has again addressed the second respondent through email asking for the dispatch and forwarding details of his application for the Tamil Nadu Senior Scientist Award 2016.  There is no reply to the said mail also.

  1. On 02.07.2018 the petitioner has written to the Registrar, viz.

the first respondent specifically alleging that he had submitted the application in triplicate along with original certificates, relevant documents and a Demand Draft for Rs.200/- to the Head of the Department of Biochemistry for onword transmission to the Science City.  Though this letter is received by the office of the Registrar on 02.07.2018, no reply has been sent by the Office of the Registrar. However, upon the petitioner invoking the Right to Information Act, a query is made to the second respondent and he writes to the Registrar on 24.08.2018 stating that the application has been forwarded to the Registrar on 27.12.2017 and a separate request letter has been submitted to the Registrar, University of Madras about the non availability of office personnel to look into

verify the voluminous documents that were submitted by

Dr.S.Subramanian”  (emphasis supplied).

  1. By a communication dated 28.08.2018, the Registrar of the University, namely the first respondent writes to the second respondent stating that a verification with a Tapal Register shows that the application which is said to have been forwarded has not been received by his office. It should be pointed out at this juncture it is the counsel for the Registrar who had produced atleast 8 or 9 volumes of documents on 09.12.2022 in this Court and the same were handed over to the petitioner.
  2. On 31.08.2018, the Public Information Officer sent a

communication to the petitioner stating that the application of the petitioner was not received by the office of the Registrar.  This is apparently false since it is the office of the Registrar which returned the application and the documents in Court on 09.12.2022.  Of course there is no direct evidence in proof of the fact that the petitioner has handed over the original documents and the papers to the Office of the second respondent and for forwarding the same to the first respondent. However, the conduct of the parties would show that the documents were in fact handed over by the petitioner.  The very fact that there is no reply to the emails sent by the petitioner on 02.01.2018 and 19.01.2018 would demonstrate that the respondents 1 and 2 went on a denial mode only after the petitioner invoked the Right to Information Act. Even to his letter dated 02.07.2018 where the petitioner has very categorically stated that he has produced the originals there was no reply. More revealing is the letter of the second respondent dated

24.08.2018 which shows that the second respondent has insisted that he had forwarded the application of the petitioner on 27.12.2017 and he had also written to the Registrar stating that there was no personnel available to verify the voluminous documents submitted by Dr.S.Subramanian.  This would show that the denial made by the respondents 1 and 2 is false. All that the petitioner is seeking is the return of the documents that have been filed by him.  The respondents have a duty to return the documents.

  1. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2

would vehemently contend that the petitioner is attempting to wreak vengeance taking advantage of the situation. The second respondent has gone on record stating that the petitioner is attempting to create a paper trail to accuse him of mis-handling the papers.   In his emails dated 02.01.2018, 19.01.2018 and his letter dated 02.07.2018, the petitioner has made it very clear that he had produced the original documents and none of these three communications have been replied to.  It would have been a normal reaction of any human being to deny the receipt of originals forthwith.  The absence of such denial impels me to conclude that there are no bona fides in the denials made by the respondents 1 and 2 subsequently.  The second respondent had vide its communications dated 24.08.2018 insisted that he had forwarded the application and though he had received the papers he had no personnel available in his office to verify the same.  These documents would go to show that the subsequent denials are made by respondents 1 and 2 only with the view to protect themselves from the consequences.

  1. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a

direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to retrieve the original documents of the petitioner and hand over the same to him within a period of eight weeks from today.  If the documents could not be retrieved within a period of eight weeks, the Vice Chancellor of the Madras University will initiate appropriate enquiry by independent persons not below the rank of Head of the Department of the University and fix the persons who are responsible for the loss of the original documents.   If the respondents 1 and 2 are unable to return the original documents to the petitioner within a period eight weeks, the Madras University will pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as damages to the petitioner.  It will be open to the Madras University to recover the damages from the persons, who are found to be responsible for the loss of the originals in the enquiry that is to be conducted.  The petitioner would also be entitled to costs of Rs.10,000/- in this Writ Petition to be paid by the 1st respondent.  Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

21.12.2022 jv

Index       :Yes

Internet    :Yes

Speaking order

To:-

  1. The Registrar

University of Madras,     Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

  1. V. Elangovan

Professor and Head

Department of Biochemistry,     University of Madras,

Guindy Campus,  Chennai 600 025.

  1. The Principal Secretary and

Member-Syndicate, University of Madras,

Higher Education Department,     Secretariat, Fort St. George,     Chennai 600 009.

  1. The Vice-Chairman, Science City,      Gandhi Mandapam Road,      Chennai 600 025.

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

jv

Pre-delivery order in

Writ Petition No.9304 of 2022 and WMP No. 9063 of 2022

21.12.2022

1/2

You may also like...