'Would Lead To Travesty Of Justice': Madras HC Directs TN Govt To Furnish Anna University Inquiry Report To Ex-VC MK Surappa

The Madras High Court has ordered the TN Higher Education Department to furnish a copy of the Justice P.Kalaiyarasan Inquiry Report to Professor M.K Surappa on the allegations levelled against him.

Directing the respondent department to make available a copy of the report to the former Anna University Vice Chancellor within fifteen days, Justice V. Parthiban noted that failure to furnish inquiry report to the petitioner at this stage would lead to 'travesty of justice, opposed to fair play and good conscience' and Article 311(2) of the Constitution.

Upon receipt of the report copy, the former VC can opt to submit his objections within four weeks.

"....From the conjoined reading of the case laws, the Courts have consistently ruled that there cannot be any slightest departure from complying with the principles of natural justice, namely furnishing of copy of the inquiry Report before the disciplinary authority forms an opinion on the inquiry Report. Such mandate in the opinion of this Court is the sublimest hallmark of fair play and good conscience in action consistent with the constitutional imperatives", the single bench observed.

Article 311 (2) states that "no such person (government servants) as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges."

The court was also critical about the Higher Education Department's stand that the inquiry report need not be furnished so as to set a 'wrong precedent' in the absence of an explicit provision in the Anna University Act, 1978 (hereinafter 'Act') . To make the state aware about the falsity of such an interpretation, the court referred to Section 11 (4) (B) of the Act that comes after 11(4)(A) on the removal of Vice Chancellor.

The court identified the relevant excerpt from the provision which is reproduced below:

"...The inquiry authority shall hold the inquiry after giving an opportunity to make representation by the Vice-chancellor and shall submit a report to the Government on the action to be taken including penalty, if any to be imposed and the Government shall on consideration of the report advise the Chancellor. The Chancellor shall Act in accordance with such advice, as far as maybe, in any case within three months."

From the above provision, the court inferred that the government is required to take action on the inquiry report and advice the Chancellor. The use of ['shall' act in accordance with such advice] indicates that the government should furnish the report to the petitioner and receive the objections raised by him. Based on that, the government can decide if the findings in the report ought to be accepted and advice the Chancellor accordingly, though the decision of Chancellor would be final.

"If the Government stand (of not furnishing the enquiry report) were to be accepted and applied, the same would amount to judicial imprimaturs for its unconstitutional action", the court added. The argument that there is no express provision in the Act mandating the furnishing of inquiry report to the Vice Chancellor is a 'sordid reflection of lack of legal awareness' as to the law of the land under Article 141.

"From the reading of the provision, it can be deduced without any pale of doubt that the Government is the prime and the principal decision maker and the advice emanating for such decision may have domineering influence on the eventual decision to be taken by the Chancellor. As a matter of fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the furnishing of inquiry report is integral part of compliance with Article 311 of the Constitution of India", the court observed terming the 'contrived' stand of the government 'shying away' from furnishing the copy as 'antithetical' to the concept of reasonableness and fairness in Article 14, the court concluded.

Background

Professor M.K Surappa was appointed as the Vice Chancellor in April 2018. The petitioner had previously claimed before the High Court that he introduced innovative measures to secure an Institute of Excellence (IoE) for the University. According to him, the stringent administrative measures followed by him ruffled some feathers, causing disgruntlement among a few staff, leading to the filing of a complaint against him. 

Many complaints were received by the Government accusing the former VC of taking bribes for appointments of professors, scams in conduct of examinations, administrative appointments as per his whims and fancies, furnishing wrong information to AICTE etc. As a result of the complaints received, Government issued notification vide G.O (Rt) No.138, Higher Education Department, dated 11.11.2020 appointing an inquiry officer, the former Madras High Court Judge.

The former Vice Chancellor approached the High Court challenging the above government order. In the meanwhile, the professor demitted office as Vice Chancellor in April, 2021. The inquiry officer continued with the inquiry and submitted the final report in June, 2021. Thereafter, the petitioner requested the court to dispose off the writ petition by giving a direction to furnish the inquiry report's copy so that he can submit his objections within a reasonable time period.

Other Observations

Saying that the principles of natural justice will be violated if there is a denial to furnish the inquiry report to the accused, court majorly relied on Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others v. B.Karunakar and Others, (1993) 4 SCC 727 to hold that the 'right to receive the report' is the essential part of reasonable opportunity to be extended to the 'person affected by the report'. The court also pointed out that the supreme court was clear about extending such right even if it is not explicitly stated in the statute book or regulations since it is a facet of 'No one should be condemned without being heard'.

In the judgement of the apex court relied by Justice V. Parthiban, it has been mentioned that:"

"The reason why the right to receive the report of the enquiry officer is considered an essential part of the reasonable opportunity at the first stage and also a principle of natural justice is that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer form an important material before the disciplinary authority which along with the evidence is taken into consideration by it to come to its conclusions....The findings further might have been recorded without considering the relevant evidence on record, or by misconstruing it or unsupported by it. If such a finding is to be one of the documents to be considered by the disciplinary authority, the principles of natural justice require that the employee should have a fair opportunity to meet, explain and controvert it before he is condemned."

Further, relying on Punjab National Bank and Others v. Kunj Behari Misra,  (1998) 7 SCC 84, the court observed that imposing penalty without obtaining objections to the findings of inquiry officer will be most unfair and iniquitous.

The court has also distinguished the two stages, inquiry proceedings and disciplinary proceedings, by stating that the supreme court has time and again stated that the 'to represent against the findings' is different from the 'right to represent against the proposed penalty' as laid down in Managing Director, ECIL.

"..It is only the second right to represent against the proposed penalty which is taken away by the 42nd Amendment. The right to represent against the findings in the report is not disturbed in any way. In fact, any denial thereof will make the final order vulnerable.", the apex court had observed in Managing Director, ECIL case.

Case Title: Prof. M.K Surappa v. The Joint Secretary, Department of Higher Education & Ors.

Case No: W.P.No.4607 of 2021 & W.M.P.Nos.5244 and 5246 of 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 59

Appearance: Mr. N Vijayaraghavan for Petitioner, Mr.D.Simon, Central Government Standing Counsel for first respondent, Mr.B.Rabu Manohar, Standing Counsel for second respondent, Ms.V.Sudha,  Central Government Standing Counsel for third respondent, Mr.V.Veluchamy, Additional Government Pleader for fourth respondent, Mr.M.Vijayakumar, Standing Counsel for fifth and sixth respondents and Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal,Additional Government Pleader for seventh respondent.

Click Here To Read/ Download Order