Mahathma Gandhi University Vs. M R Unni - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1016810
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnJul-23-2013
JudgeHON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR
AppellantMahathma Gandhi University
RespondentM R Unni
Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the hon'ble the chief justice dr. manjula chellur & the honourable mr.justice k.vinod chandran tuesday, the 23rd day of july 2013 1st sravana, 1935 wa.no. 636 of 2013 in wp(c).25431/2012 -------------------------------------- against the order in wp(c) 25431/2012 dated 10 04/2013 in i.a. no.4547 of 201.in i.a. no.4281 of 201.in wp(c) no.25431 of 201............... appellants/petitioners in ia.4547/2013 : --------------------------------------------------- 1. mahathma gandhi university represented by the vice chancellor mahathma gandhi university, priyadarshini hills athirampuzha, kottayam-686 560.2. the vice chancellor mahathma gandhi university, priyadarshini hills athirampuzha, kottayam-686 560.3. the syndicate mahathma gandhi university represented by the vice chancellor priyadarshini hills, athirampuzha, kottayam-686 560. by adv. sri.p.c.sasidharan respondent/respondent : --------------------------------- m r unni registrar (under order of suspension) mahathma gandhi university, priyadarshini hills athirampuzha, kottayam-686 560. by adv. sri.murali purushothaman sri.deepu lal mohan this writ appeal having been finally heard on 11-07-2013 the court on 23-07-2013 delivered the following: manjula chellur, c.j.& k. vinod chandran, j.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - w.a. no. 636 of 201.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - dated this the 23rd day of july, 2013 judgment manjula chellur, c.j.this appeal is directed against the order in i.a. no. 4547/13 in i.a. no. 4281/13 in w.p.(c) no.25431/12.2. the writ petition came to be filed challenging exts.p3, p7, p11, p14, p16 and 20. the writ petitioner is none other than the respondent herein who is holding the office of the registrar of mahatma gandhi university. he approached learned single judge complaining that on 14.08.2012, a group of employees belonging to a particular service organisation trespassed into his chamber at the university, prevented him from discharging his official duties by abusing and threatening him with dire consequences and destroying the articles in the chamber. it is said, he was confined to the chair in his chamber. a complaint came to be lodged by him as per ext.p1 before the station house officer, gandhi nagar police station resulting in crime no.666/12 being registered against 16 employees of the w.a. no. 636 of 2013 -:2:- university for various offences under ipc. some of the accused are the personal staff of vice chancellor and pro chancellor. with reference to that incident, no action came to be initiated, but on the other hand, a formal enquiry came to be initiated against the writ petitioner by the vice chancellor invoking emergency powers under section10(17) of chapter iii, mahatma gandhi university act (for short called the act hereinafter). this was a counter blast by the staff of the university to the criminal case initiated at the instance of the petitioner. the enquiry was in respect of very same untoward incident said to have happened in the chambers of petitioner on 14.08.2012, as also the alleged misbehaviour of the petitioner to two employees. this came to be challenged for want of any warranting circumstances to invoke emergency clause.3. according to the writ petitioner the power of conducting a formal enquiry is not done by the authorised authority in terms of section 41(b). added to this, respondents 6 and 7, the members of enquiry committee, are persons who have bias against the writ petitioner. it is alleged, with oblique w.a. no. 636 of 2013 -:3:- and ulterior motive to execute political agenda against the writ petitioner, said enquiry is initiated. apprehending serious consequences of such an enquiry, an application in i.a. no.4281 of 2013 came to be filed seeking a direction against the respondent authorities not to disturb the writ petitioner from discharging his functions as registrar of the 1st respondent university pending disposal of the writ petition. this came to be opposed by the respondents.4. as on the date of considering i.a. no.4281 of 2013, ext.p16 order issued by the university for conducting an enquiry and ext.p20 order by which the petitioner was directed to appear before the enquiry commissioner based on the complaints given by the two staff of the vice chancellor were stayed. according to the writ petitioner, then a newspaper item appeared indicating that the syndicate has taken a decision to call upon the writ petitioner to proceed on leave which is in gross violation of the interim directions of the court.5. as against this the stand of the university was that the syndicate considered certain other complaints against the w.a. no. 636 of 2013 -:4:- petitioner on the basis of a complaint forwarded by the pro chancellor to the vice chancellor regarding the qualification of the petitioner. the syndicate did not order suspension of the registrar in order to find out the factual basis for such allegation. however, they reiterated that the enquiry proceedings were kept in abeyance but the second incident is a totally different matter. having regard to the said submission, the learned single judge proceeded to allow the interim prayer directing the respondent not to disturb the writ petitioner from functioning in the office of the registrar and to permit him to function as registrar of the university.6. surprisingly, another i.a. no.4547 of 2013 in i.a. no.4281 of 2013 came to be filed. this is moved by respondents 1, 2 and 4 seeking to vacate the interim order dated 18.03.2013 permitting the writ petitioner to function as registrar of 1st respondent. according to the appellants, the subject matter of the writ petition is different and distinct from what is indicated at exts.p16 and p20. the order of stay was confined to the action taken by the vice chancellor exercising the power under section w.a. no. 636 of 2013 -:5:- 10(17) of the act against the registrar who was the writ petitioner. the incident which led to the order of an enquiry is in relation to the conduct of the writ petitioner. the contention raised in the writ petition is that the exercise of power by the then vice chancellor on the complaint of the employees of the university is without jurisdiction. the scope of the writ petition and the interim order relate only to the matters mentioned in exts.p16 and p20 and by virtue of the interlocutory application a new cause of action came to be introduced totally unrelated to the original issue resulting in that no enquiry whatsoever can be conducted against the petitioner for any of his acts and misconducts. this led to a position wherein the university is disabled to conduct any enquiry even in the case of different and distinct issue other than the issue in the main writ petition. the complaints received were forwarded to the university; enquired into the matter and submitted a report. consequently the syndicate in its meeting discussed the matter and since the issue was in relation to the genuineness of the qualification possessed by the petitioner who was discharging the functions in the pivotal w.a. no. 636 of 2013 -:6:- post of registrar, it was felt by the syndicate that in the light of the cloud cast on his qualification, it has to be cleared and hence the committee came to be constituted as it was a sensitive and serious allegation and the nact was likely to visit the university.7. further syndicate felt, retaining such an officer as registrar would be detrimental to the interest of the university hence decided to constitute a committee for necessary action. petitioner was also present through out the meeting as secretary, who had to record the minutes. he was informed that he has to keep away from the university till the enquiry is over. he approached the vice chancellor requesting enlightenment on the nature of leave he was to avail; wherein he also contended that the enquiry ordered against him was beyond the powers of the syndicate. then considering the non-recording of the minutes of the syndicate including the decision to constitute a sub- committee to conduct enquiry against the petitioner, the petitioner was requested to submit his explanation as to why proceedings shall not be initiated for his misconduct. no explanation was offered by the writ petitioner when notice was w.a. no. 636 of 2013 -:7:- served. opining, continuation of him in the service of the university would affect the smooth functioning of the university, it was decided to keep the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect and the suspension order was served at the office at 1.30 p.m. suppressing all these facts including the subsequent event, petitioner approached this court seeking the relief to permit him to function as registrar of the university without challenging the decision of the syndicate or the suspension order is the contention of the petitioner in i.a. no.4547 of 2013. the challenge in the main petition against exts.p16 and p20 or the interim order issued on 31.01.2012, has nothing to do with the present action of the university, therefore as the prayer sought in i.a. no.4281 of 2012 is totally alien to the subject matter in the main petition, they sought for vacating the interim order dated 18.03.2013.8. the order of stay dated 31.10.2012 was with reference to an enquiry that was initiated against the writ petitioner on the complaint of the employees of the university. in between, the vice chancellor demitted office and new vice w.a. no. 636 of 2013 -:8:- chancellor took charge on 05.01.2013. the learned judge opined that based on the complaint at ext.p24 on the directions of pro chancellor the matter went before syndicate and without conducting any preliminary enquiry syndicate suddenly directed the registrar to keep away from the office, therefore, such action to circumvent the orders of the court cannot be entertained. the learned judge felt there was no reason to vacate the interim order as the interim order has been passed after hearing the university; by considering their statement as well. the learned judge opined, if the stand of the university that suspension order was served even before the order dated 18.03.2013, is accepted then the petitioner had agitated the matter before this court and that too was covered by the interim order. opining so, learned judge dismissed i.a. no.4547 of 2013. aggrieved by the same, this writ appeal is filed.9. heard learned counsel representing the appellant university as well as learned senior counsel representing the writ petitioner/respondent. it is not in dispute that w.p.(c) no.25431 of 2012 is filed seeking the following reliefs: w.a. no. 636 of 2013 -:9:- "(i) to issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to exhibits p3, p7, p11, p14, p16 and p20 and quash the same; (ii) to declare that the order of the 2nd respondent dated 10.09.2012 constituting the enquiry committee to conduct enquiry against the petitioner invoking the powers under section 10(17) of the mahatma gandhi university act, 1985 followed by ext.p16 order is without authority and jurisdiction and is unsustainable in law. (iii) to declare that the 2nd respondent has no authority or jurisdiction to conduct any enquiry or disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner under the provisions of the mahatma gandhi university act 1985, the statutes and ordinances. (iv) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the respondents from proceeding further with any enquiry against the petitioner pursuant to exhibits p3, p11, p14, p16 and p20. (v) to order the cost of the proceedings under rule 157 of the kerala high court rules. (vi) to issue such other and further reliefs as may be prayed for from time to time." 10. the learned judge in the first order in i.a no.4281 of 2013 clearly indicated staying further proceedings pertaining to ext.p16, ordering an enquiry and ext.p20 directing the writ petitioner to appear before the enquiry committee. however, he proceeded on the assumption that the direction to proceed on w.a. no. 636 of 2013 -:10:- leave was in continuation of the enquiry already indicated and the said direction was without even giving an opportunity to the petitioner.11. what we notice is, so far as the incident occurred on 14.08.2012, a criminal case is registered against the staff of the university on the complaint of the registrar/writ petitioner. so far as the university is concerned, no action is initiated on the complaint of the registrar against those staff members. on the other hand, on the complaint of some of the staff, an enquiry is initiated into the incident dated 14.08.2012 against the writ petitioner. in connection with this enquiry the petitioner was required to appear. then the writ petitioner approached this court by filing w.p.(c) no.25431 of 2012.12. the material on record clearly indicates the decision of the syndicate directing the petitioner to proceed on leave was entirely different and with reference to a different subject i.e with regard to the qualification of the writ petitioner to hold the post of registrar and according to the complainants he has submitted false fabricated documents to get the appointment w.a. no. 636 of 2013 -:11:- as registrar. the syndicate on 16.03.2013 passed a resolution to constitute an enquiry committee to enquire into the petitioner's qualification and directed the petitioner to proceed on leave for a period of 6 months or until the completion of enquiry. this is totally a different cause of action from the cause of action referred to in exts.p16 and p20. suspension order dated 18.03.2013 is not for noncompliance of directions of syndicate directing the petitioner to proceed on leave but for non recording the minutes of the meeting and disobeying the directions of the vice chancellor when explanation was called for. the direction given to the registrar to keep away from the office of the registrar or suspending him from discharging the duties of registrar has nothing to do with either ext.p16 or ext.p20. the direction given to the registrar to proceed on leave was altogether a different subject matter pertaining to complaints regarding qualifications of writ petitioner. exts.p16 and p20 are with regard to an incident that occurred in the chambers of the registrar on 14.08.2012. similarly, suspension of the petitioner is entirely for a different reason i.e. non-recording the minutes w.a. no. 636 of 2013 -:12:- and non-submission of explanation when called for by the vice chancellor. this also has nothing to do with exts.p16 and ext.p20. it is brought to our notice that the suspension order is challenged by the writ petitioner by filing another writ petition. in that view of the matter, there is justification in the contention raised by the appellant university that the learned judge ought not to have allowed i.a. no.4281 of 2013 and further ought not to have dismissed i.a. no.4547 of 2013. therefore, we allow the writ appeal by setting aside the order dated 18.03.2013 in i.a. no.4281 of 2013 and i.a. no.4547/13. we are told that the direction to proceed on leave being an entirely new cause of action, is challenged now, by seeking to amend the writ petition. we make it clear that the writ petition has to be disposed of on its merits, upon which we have not touched. manjula chellur, chief justice. k. vinod chandran, judge. ttb w.a. no. 636 of 2013 -:13:-
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2013 1ST SRAVANA, 1935 WA.No. 636 of 2013 IN WP(C).25431/2012 -------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C) 25431/2012 DATED 10 04/2013 IN I.A. NO.4547 OF 201.IN I.A. NO.4281 OF 201.IN WP(C) NO.25431 OF 201............... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS IN IA.4547/2013 : --------------------------------------------------- 1. MAHATHMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR MAHATHMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM-686 560.

2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR MAHATHMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM-686 560.

3. THE SYNDICATE MAHATHMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM-686 560. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT : --------------------------------- M R UNNI REGISTRAR (UNDER ORDER OF SUSPENSION) MAHATHMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM-686 560. BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-07-2013 THE COURT ON 23-07-2013 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Manjula Chellur, C.J.

& K. Vinod Chandran, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 636 OF 201.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2013 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, C.J.

This appeal is directed against the order in I.A. No. 4547/13 in I.A. No. 4281/13 in W.P.(C) No.25431/12.

2. The writ petition came to be filed challenging Exts.P3, P7, P11, P14, P16 and 20. The writ petitioner is none other than the respondent herein who is holding the office of the Registrar of Mahatma Gandhi University. He approached learned Single Judge complaining that on 14.08.2012, a group of employees belonging to a particular service organisation trespassed into his chamber at the University, prevented him from discharging his official duties by abusing and threatening him with dire consequences and destroying the articles in the chamber. It is said, he was confined to the chair in his chamber. A complaint came to be lodged by him as per Ext.P1 before the Station House Officer, Gandhi Nagar Police Station resulting in Crime No.666/12 being registered against 16 employees of the W.A. No. 636 of 2013 -:2:- University for various offences under IPC. Some of the accused are the personal staff of Vice Chancellor and Pro Chancellor. With reference to that incident, no action came to be initiated, but on the other hand, a formal enquiry came to be initiated against the writ petitioner by the Vice Chancellor invoking emergency powers under Section10(17) of Chapter III, Mahatma Gandhi University Act (for short called the Act hereinafter). This was a counter blast by the staff of the University to the criminal case initiated at the instance of the petitioner. The enquiry was in respect of very same untoward incident said to have happened in the chambers of petitioner on 14.08.2012, as also the alleged misbehaviour of the petitioner to two employees. This came to be challenged for want of any warranting circumstances to invoke emergency clause.

3. According to the writ petitioner the power of conducting a formal enquiry is not done by the authorised authority in terms of Section 41(b). Added to this, respondents 6 and 7, the members of enquiry committee, are persons who have bias against the writ petitioner. It is alleged, with oblique W.A. No. 636 of 2013 -:3:- and ulterior motive to execute political agenda against the writ petitioner, said enquiry is initiated. Apprehending serious consequences of such an enquiry, an application in I.A. No.4281 of 2013 came to be filed seeking a direction against the respondent authorities not to disturb the writ petitioner from discharging his functions as Registrar of the 1st respondent University pending disposal of the writ petition. This came to be opposed by the respondents.

4. As on the date of considering I.A. No.4281 of 2013, Ext.P16 order issued by the University for conducting an enquiry and Ext.P20 order by which the petitioner was directed to appear before the Enquiry Commissioner based on the complaints given by the two staff of the Vice Chancellor were stayed. According to the writ petitioner, then a newspaper item appeared indicating that the Syndicate has taken a decision to call upon the writ petitioner to proceed on leave which is in gross violation of the interim directions of the Court.

5. As against this the stand of the University was that the Syndicate considered certain other complaints against the W.A. No. 636 of 2013 -:4:- petitioner on the basis of a complaint forwarded by the Pro Chancellor to the Vice Chancellor regarding the qualification of the petitioner. The Syndicate did not order suspension of the Registrar in order to find out the factual basis for such allegation. However, they reiterated that the enquiry proceedings were kept in abeyance but the second incident is a totally different matter. Having regard to the said submission, the learned Single Judge proceeded to allow the interim prayer directing the respondent not to disturb the writ petitioner from functioning in the office of the Registrar and to permit him to function as Registrar of the University.

6. Surprisingly, another I.A. No.4547 of 2013 in I.A. No.4281 of 2013 came to be filed. This is moved by respondents 1, 2 and 4 seeking to vacate the interim order dated 18.03.2013 permitting the writ petitioner to function as Registrar of 1st respondent. According to the appellants, the subject matter of the writ petition is different and distinct from what is indicated at Exts.P16 and P20. The order of stay was confined to the action taken by the Vice Chancellor exercising the power under Section W.A. No. 636 of 2013 -:5:- 10(17) of the Act against the Registrar who was the writ petitioner. The incident which led to the order of an enquiry is in relation to the conduct of the writ petitioner. The contention raised in the writ petition is that the exercise of power by the then Vice Chancellor on the complaint of the employees of the University is without jurisdiction. The scope of the writ petition and the interim order relate only to the matters mentioned in Exts.P16 and P20 and by virtue of the interlocutory application a new cause of action came to be introduced totally unrelated to the original issue resulting in that no enquiry whatsoever can be conducted against the petitioner for any of his acts and misconducts. This led to a position wherein the University is disabled to conduct any enquiry even in the case of different and distinct issue other than the issue in the main writ petition. The complaints received were forwarded to the University; enquired into the matter and submitted a report. Consequently the Syndicate in its meeting discussed the matter and since the issue was in relation to the genuineness of the qualification possessed by the petitioner who was discharging the functions in the pivotal W.A. No. 636 of 2013 -:6:- post of Registrar, it was felt by the Syndicate that in the light of the cloud cast on his qualification, it has to be cleared and hence the Committee came to be constituted as it was a sensitive and serious allegation and the NACT was likely to visit the University.

7. Further Syndicate felt, retaining such an officer as Registrar would be detrimental to the interest of the University hence decided to constitute a Committee for necessary action. Petitioner was also present through out the meeting as Secretary, who had to record the minutes. He was informed that he has to keep away from the University till the enquiry is over. He approached the Vice Chancellor requesting enlightenment on the nature of leave he was to avail; wherein he also contended that the enquiry ordered against him was beyond the powers of the Syndicate. Then considering the non-recording of the minutes of the Syndicate including the decision to constitute a Sub- Committee to conduct enquiry against the petitioner, the petitioner was requested to submit his explanation as to why proceedings shall not be initiated for his misconduct. No explanation was offered by the writ petitioner when notice was W.A. No. 636 of 2013 -:7:- served. Opining, continuation of him in the service of the University would affect the smooth functioning of the University, it was decided to keep the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect and the suspension order was served at the office at 1.30 p.m. Suppressing all these facts including the subsequent event, petitioner approached this Court seeking the relief to permit him to function as Registrar of the University without challenging the decision of the Syndicate or the suspension order is the contention of the petitioner in I.A. No.4547 of 2013. The challenge in the main petition against Exts.P16 and P20 or the interim order issued on 31.01.2012, has nothing to do with the present action of the University, therefore as the prayer sought in I.A. No.4281 of 2012 is totally alien to the subject matter in the main petition, they sought for vacating the interim order dated 18.03.2013.

8. The order of stay dated 31.10.2012 was with reference to an enquiry that was initiated against the writ petitioner on the complaint of the employees of the University. In between, the Vice Chancellor demitted office and new Vice W.A. No. 636 of 2013 -:8:- Chancellor took charge on 05.01.2013. The learned Judge opined that based on the complaint at Ext.P24 on the directions of Pro Chancellor the matter went before Syndicate and without conducting any preliminary enquiry Syndicate suddenly directed the Registrar to keep away from the office, therefore, such action to circumvent the orders of the Court cannot be entertained. The learned Judge felt there was no reason to vacate the interim order as the interim order has been passed after hearing the University; by considering their statement as well. The learned Judge opined, if the stand of the University that suspension order was served even before the order dated 18.03.2013, is accepted then the petitioner had agitated the matter before this Court and that too was covered by the interim order. Opining so, learned Judge dismissed I.A. No.4547 of 2013. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Appeal is filed.

9. Heard learned counsel representing the appellant University as well as learned Senior Counsel representing the writ petitioner/respondent. It is not in dispute that W.P.(C) No.25431 of 2012 is filed seeking the following reliefs: W.A. No. 636 of 2013 -:9:- "(i) to issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibits P3, P7, P11, P14, P16 and P20 and quash the same; (ii) to declare that the order of the 2nd respondent dated 10.09.2012 constituting the Enquiry Committee to conduct enquiry against the petitioner invoking the powers under Section 10(17) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 followed by Ext.P16 order is without authority and jurisdiction and is unsustainable in law. (iii) to declare that the 2nd respondent has no authority or jurisdiction to conduct any enquiry or disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner under the provisions of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act 1985, the Statutes and Ordinances. (iv) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the respondents from proceeding further with any enquiry against the petitioner pursuant to Exhibits P3, P11, P14, P16 and P20. (v) to order the cost of the proceedings under Rule 157 of the Kerala High Court Rules. (vi) to issue such other and further reliefs as may be prayed for from time to time." 10. The learned Judge in the first order in I.A No.4281 of 2013 clearly indicated staying further proceedings pertaining to Ext.P16, ordering an enquiry and Ext.P20 directing the writ petitioner to appear before the enquiry committee. However, he proceeded on the assumption that the direction to proceed on W.A. No. 636 of 2013 -:10:- leave was in continuation of the enquiry already indicated and the said direction was without even giving an opportunity to the petitioner.

11. What we notice is, so far as the incident occurred on 14.08.2012, a criminal case is registered against the staff of the University on the complaint of the Registrar/writ petitioner. So far as the University is concerned, no action is initiated on the complaint of the Registrar against those staff members. On the other hand, on the complaint of some of the staff, an enquiry is initiated into the incident dated 14.08.2012 against the writ petitioner. In connection with this enquiry the petitioner was required to appear. Then the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.25431 of 2012.

12. The material on record clearly indicates the decision of the Syndicate directing the petitioner to proceed on leave was entirely different and with reference to a different subject i.e with regard to the qualification of the writ petitioner to hold the post of Registrar and according to the complainants he has submitted false fabricated documents to get the appointment W.A. No. 636 of 2013 -:11:- as Registrar. The Syndicate on 16.03.2013 passed a resolution to constitute an enquiry committee to enquire into the petitioner's qualification and directed the petitioner to proceed on leave for a period of 6 months or until the completion of enquiry. This is totally a different cause of action from the cause of action referred to in Exts.P16 and P20. Suspension order dated 18.03.2013 is not for noncompliance of directions of Syndicate directing the petitioner to proceed on leave but for non recording the minutes of the meeting and disobeying the directions of the Vice Chancellor when explanation was called for. The direction given to the Registrar to keep away from the office of the Registrar or suspending him from discharging the duties of Registrar has nothing to do with either Ext.P16 or Ext.P20. The direction given to the Registrar to proceed on leave was altogether a different subject matter pertaining to complaints regarding qualifications of writ petitioner. Exts.P16 and P20 are with regard to an incident that occurred in the chambers of the Registrar on 14.08.2012. Similarly, suspension of the petitioner is entirely for a different reason i.e. non-recording the minutes W.A. No. 636 of 2013 -:12:- and non-submission of explanation when called for by the Vice Chancellor. This also has nothing to do with Exts.P16 and Ext.P20. It is brought to our notice that the suspension order is challenged by the writ petitioner by filing another writ petition. In that view of the matter, there is justification in the contention raised by the appellant University that the learned Judge ought not to have allowed I.A. No.4281 of 2013 and further ought not to have dismissed I.A. No.4547 of 2013. Therefore, we allow the Writ Appeal by setting aside the order dated 18.03.2013 in I.A. No.4281 of 2013 and I.A. No.4547/13. We are told that the direction to proceed on leave being an entirely new cause of action, is challenged now, by seeking to amend the Writ Petition. We make it clear that the Writ Petition has to be disposed of on its merits, upon which we have not touched. Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice. K. Vinod Chandran, Judge. ttb W.A. No. 636 of 2013 -:13:-