Munavar Batcha v. M.G.Dawood Mia Khan

This Contempt Petition has been filed to initiate contempt proceeding against the respondents for willful and deliberate disobeying the order dated 15/3/2017 passed in Writ Petition Nos.3265 and 3266 of 2015.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner while working as Associate Professor in the first respondent College was suspended on 21/2/201 and a charge memo was issued on 19/1/2015. Aggrieved by the suspension order and charge memo, the petitioner had filed W.P.Nos.3265 and 3266 of 2015, respectively. Pending writ petitions, first respondent College and the petitioner had entered into a compromise and filed a Joint Compromise Memo dated 28/2/2017. The relevant contents of the Joint Memo of Compromise, reads as under:-

"2. The first respondent agrees to revoke the suspension of petitioner with immediate effect and the petitioner shall be deemed to be on duty for the entire period of suspension and shall be allowed to avail all the benefits of salary, increments, counting of service for pension

3/14

purposes, etc. The first respondent also agrees to withdraw, revoke and cancel the charge memo issued to the petitioner and drop all disciplinary proceedings. The suspension period from 21/2/2014 to till date be treated as on regular service and full salary should be claimed from the second respondent and paid to the petitioner by the first respondent subject to the approval of this Court.

3. The petitioner has received subsistence allowance during the suspension period from 21/2/2014 to January 2017. The petitioner would claim his full salary for the above said period, from the second respondent through the first respondent subject to the approval of this Court. Further, the petitioner agrees out of the salary received for the period between 21/2/2014 to January 2017 would reimburse the subsistence allowance to the first respondent. The first respondent agrees to issue the following necessary certificate viz.,(1). The suspension revocation order (2) withdrawal of all memos

(3) the relieving order (4) the last pay drawn certificate and (5) no due certificates to the

4/14

petitioner.

4. The petitioner submits that he would pay a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- in total to the first respondent inclusive of Rs.3,68,000/- paid to the substitute staff in the absence of the petitioner from 21/2/2014 to January 2017, after the petitioner receives all the terminal benefits.

5. The petitioner is voluntarily agreeing to submit his application for Voluntary Retirement Scheme w.e.f 1/3/2017 and first respondent agreed to accept the application of VRS of the petitioner and the first respondent College authorities agreed to relieve the petitioner from the Collee on VRS on 1^st March 2017.

3. Based on the said Compromise Memo, this Court, vide, order dated 15/3/2017, disposed of both the writ petitions. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a Contempt Petition No.1277 of 2019 for compliance of the order dated 15/3/2017 made in W.P.Nos.3265 and 3266 of 2015.

4. Vide, order dated 29/1/2020, this Court had observed the fact that

5/14

the first respondent in compliance of the order dated 6/1/2020 have furnished all the documents to the Department of Collegiate Education and since the same has been acknowledged by the petitioner, closed the Contempt Petition No.1277 of 2019.

5. The present Contempt Petition was filed on the ground that though all the relevant documents had been filed with the second respondent/Commissioner of Collegiate Education, and the same has been forwarded to the Government of Tamil Nadu, the following bills have not been sanctioned -

(i) arrears of salary for the period from March 2014 to February 2017 amounting to Rs.51.90,500/-.

(ii) Proposals for sanction of revised pension for the entire period i.e., from 21/2/2014 to 28/2/2017.

(iii) Leave salary (EL & LOPA) amounting to Rs.11,52,615/- and

(iv) Special Provident Fund

6. Heard Mr.Akhil Ahmed Akbar Ali, learned counsel for the

6/14

petitioner, Mr.GodsonSwaminath, learned counsel for the first respondent and Ms.Dakshayani Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the second respondent.

7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Collegiate Education would submit that in accordance with Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, the period of suspension cannot exceed two months and for two more months under exceptional circumstances as stated in the Provision. If the enquiry is not completed within time, the Teacher gets restored to his post automatically. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that during the period of suspension, the Director of Collegiate Education has to pay the subsistence allowance. In view of the Joint Compromise Memo, the respondent Collegiate Education cannot be made to pay any such arrears amounting to nearly Rs.52 lakhs or other benefits. The Director of Collegiate Education was not a party to any of the proceedings that went on between the petitioner and first respondent College. The petitioner was suspended on account of sexual harassment of a Student and accordingly, charge memo was issued. In case of such allegation of sexual harassment, no reasons are

7/14

given as to why the petitioner and the College has compromised and filed a compromise memo. The acts of the petitioner and the College cannot result in penalizing the Director of Collegiate Education asking the salary to be paid during the suspension period.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it was specifically mentioned in the compromise memo that College would withdraw the allegations levelled against the petitioner and the order of suspension stand revoked. In such circumstances, question of denying the salary for the suspension period does not arise.

9. Perused the materials available on record.

10. As seen from the records, the charge levelled against the petitioner is that the petitioner has indulged in sexual harassment of a Student and was also harassing SC Students by calling them in the name of their caste and threatening them. In fact, the students of the College agitated for about five days seeking action against the petitioner. The enquiry conducted did not conclude due to non-appearance of petitioner and the

8/14

statements of the victims are also not placed before this Court. However, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was suspended on account of sexual harassment of a student and the petitioner did not attend the enquiry.

11. The reasons for entering into a compromise between the petitioner and College are not known. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, there is no basis to penalize the Director of College Education to cough up the amount of more than Rs.52 lakhs to the petitioner. Moreover, the Director of Collegiate Education was not a party to the compromise filed by the writ petitioner in W.P.Nos.3265 and 3266 of

2015.

12. Under Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, suspension of a Teacher or any other person employed in a Private College shall remain in force for a period of two months and for the reasons to be recorded for another two months. The reasoning given by the College for keeping the petitioner under suspension

9/14

for three years is the sexual harassment allegation made by the students. As already said the students went on agitation seeking action against the petitioner, however, the enquiry was not concluded.

13. The present petition is filed to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents for wilfully and deliberately disobeying the order dated 15/3/2017 passed in W.P.Nos.3265 and 3266 of 2015.

14. The relevant portion of the order dated 15/3/2017 reads as under:-

"2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the parties submitted that the issues pertaining to both the writ petitions have been resolved by the parties concerned amicably and a joint memo of compromise entered into between the parties and the same has also been produced before this Court.

10/14

3. In terms of the Joint Memo of Compromise, both the writ petitions are disposed of. The Joint memo of compromise shall form part of the order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed."

15. As seen from the order, there are no specific directions given to the Directorate of Collegiate Education to pay any arrears. However, subsequently, when Contempt Petition was filed in the year 2019, the said Contempt Petition was closed on the ground that all the necessary documents were furnished by the College to the Directorate of Collegiate Education.

16. A civil Contempt involves any willful disobedience of a Court order or judgment. In the present case, there are no specific directions which are given to the Directorate of Collegiate Education for making any payment to the petitioner herein, as such the question of contempt would not

11/14

arise.

17. According to Rule 13 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, it is for the College to pay subsistence allowance every month during the period of suspension. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had received the retirement benefits as follows:-

DCRG … Rs.10,00,000/-

Commutation of Pension … Rs.10,17,227/-

Closure of Provident Fund … Rs. 6,96,357/-

(Gross) after deduction

of Rs.4,24,000/- towards

advances availed net

amount paid to

Bank Account is

Rs.2,72,357/-.

18. In the present circumstances of the case, the Director of Collegiate Education shall consider the sanction of revised pension for the entire period of service, including the suspension period and also other bills which the petitioner is lawfully entitled to.

12/14

19. With the above observation, this Contempt Petition is disposed of.

(K.SURENDER,J)

8/10/2025

mvs. Index: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No

K.SURENDER, J

mvs.

13/14

Contempt Petition No.1802 of 2025 8/10/2025

14/14