1981 (1) TMI 278 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of resignation under coercion.
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226.
3. Compliance with natural justice.
4. Entitlement to back-wages upon reinstatement.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Resignation under Coercion:
The appellant, while on probation as a Lecturer, was subjected to a departmental enquiry for dereliction of duty. On March 19, 1976, the appellant submitted a letter of apology and a resignation letter just before the enquiry commenced. The Tamil Nadu Government, upon appeal, held that the resignation was not voluntary and directed reinstatement. The High Court quashed this order, but the Supreme Court noted that the circumstances under which the resignation was obtained suggested coercion. The simultaneous submission of the apology and resignation letters, and the unusual setting of their submission, indicated that the resignation was part of a deal to drop the enquiry. The Government was justified in concluding that the resignation was not voluntary.

2. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226:
The High Court, in quashing the Government's order, acted beyond its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should not have re-evaluated the evidence or the conclusions reached by the Government. The High Court's role in issuing writs of certiorari is limited to correcting errors of law or jurisdictional excesses, not to act as an appellate body.

3. Compliance with Natural Justice:
The Government failed to comply with the rules of natural justice as required under Section 39(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, by not giving the respondent an opportunity to make representations before deciding the appeal. The Supreme Court acknowledged this lapse but decided that remitting the case for re-hearing would serve no useful purpose, given the nature of the charges and the likely outcome.

4. Entitlement to Back-Wages upon Reinstatement:
The Supreme Court noted that the Government did not make a direction for the payment of back-wages upon reinstatement, which it could have done under Section 39(2)(iii) of the Act. The case was remitted to the Government to decide on the appellant's entitlement to arrears of pay and allowances, with an opportunity for both parties to present their contentions and evidence. The Government must consider any salary earned by the appellant elsewhere during the period of his dismissal.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the Government's order for reinstatement. The matter was remitted to the Government to decide on the appellant's entitlement to back-wages, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice. There was no order as to costs.