Syndicate decision on two professors' fate tomorrow

By K. Ramachandran

CHENNAI, JULY 11. Academics in Madras University eagerly await the decision of the University Syndicate, slated to meet on Friday, on the fate of two professors against whom an in-house disciplinary committee enquiry into various charges has been completed.

The one-man commission by retired civil servant, Mr.B. Vijayaraghavan, submitted its report in February this year. It found Prof. Maa. Selvaraasan and Prof. B. Govindasamy guilty of all the charges framed against them.

Still, the two professors have appealed to the university, citing ``illegalities in the proceedings against them''.

They were charged with flouting the university rules. In February 1999, the Madras University Teachers Association (MUTA), of which both are senior members, held a day's fast, breaching a Syndicate resolution prohibiting any demonstration or fast in the university campus.

As per the second charge, the same month, the two acted in an indecorous manner before the then Vice-Chancellor (Dr. P. T. Manoharan), threatened and prevented him from leaving the office till late evening.

As per the third charge, the two had ``unauthorisedly entered a hall where a Senate meeting was in progress'' when they were not members of the body.

The fourth charge (against Prof. Selvaraasan alone) was that he had not complied with the orders dated 18-5-1999 posting him as Professor of Tamil Language department, consequent to the suspension of the Department of Contemporary Tamil Literature.

The issue concerning their membership to the Senate, and the Governor-Chancellor's decision to suspend the Department of Contemporary Tamil Literature (of which Prof. Selvaraasan was appointed head) were both then contested in court.

After the Senate meeting episode, the two professors were suspended. The matter went to court. A Single Judge's order setting aside the suspension was reversed by a Division Bench, which asked the university to complete disciplinary proceedings against them within two months.

The Syndicate delegated to the Vice-Chancellor power for taking up the proceedings. The VC, in turn, appointed Mr. Vijayaraghavan

as the inquiry officer. After lengthy judicial-type proceedings, the officer presented his report in February, holding that all the charges had been made out conclusively against the two.

However, the two professors have written to the university challenging the findings. They say the entire proceedings deserve to be dropped as it had been initiated by the VC and not the Syndicate, which was the appointing or disciplinary authority under the statute. In October 1999, the Syndicate empowered the VC to conduct the enquiry in relating to the disciplinary proceedings or through a committee constituted by the VC. But, it did not empower him to delegate another person to initiate the proceedings itself.

The proceedings against them were not done as per the university statute, which prescribed the manner in which the proceedings should be initiated. But it was done as per the TN Civil Service Discipline and Appeal Rules, which was not part of the statute. Moreover, the Syndicate resolution adopting the Civil Service rules could pertain only to non-teaching employees.

Even then, as per Rule 17 (b), the enquiry officer cannot be an outsider.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Southern States
Previous : Memory Asiad-2001 begins tomorrow
Next     : Folk theatre unplugged