R.Sam Gabriel Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the fifth respondent to readmit the petitioner to continue his study in M.A Tamil in the fifth respondent College.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.S.T.Varadarajalu For Respondents : Mr.S.Arumugam, Government Advocate (for R1 to R3) Ms.H.Mary Sowmi Rexi for M/s.Isaac Chamber (for R4 & R5)

¶22

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The instant writ petition has been filed with a prayer for issuing a Mandamus, directing the fifth respondent to readmit the petitioner to continue his study in M.A Tamil in the fifth respondent College.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials

¶26

available on record.

¶27

2/6

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

W.P.No.23431 of 2025

¶30

The main grievance of the petitioner is that he was not given any opportunity to defend his case before the issuance of his transfer certificate. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no order has been passed by the fifth respondent in pursuance of the suspension order dated 24.01.2025. He would also submit that the petitioner was part of an agitation group that had given representations to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and the Additional Chief Secretary of the Higher Education Department in respect of the maladministration of the fifth respondent college. However, the petitioner was singled out and issued with a suspension order, and thereafter, he was issued with a transfer certificate without even conducting any enquiry or following due procedures.

¶31

At this juncture, the learned counsel for the fourth and fifth respondents would submit that now the fifth respondent college is managed by an administrator, who is the Hon'ble retired judge of this Court. She would further submit that due to the instigation of some of the staff of the college, the petitioner lead the strike and that he was instrumental for such a strike, which is why he was suspended. However, she would fairly submit that if the petitioner feels that he has not been given due opportunity, the

¶32

3/6

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.P.No.23431 of 2025

¶35

respondents are willing to give due opportunity and conduct an enquiry in accordance with law.

¶36

In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the

¶37

fourth and fifth respondents, without going into the merits of this writ petition, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the fifth respondent to conduct the disciplinary proceedings and pass final order in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that any non-cooperation by the petitioner will be viewed seriously, and if the petitioner has any grievance, he may bring the same to the knowledge of the Administrator.

¶38