Give ex-VC Surappa inquiry report, Madras HC directs TN govt

The Madras High Court has asked the Tamil Nadu government to provide former Vice-Chancellor of Anna University MK Surappa a copy of Justice AK Kalaiarasan’s inquiry report in connection with alleged irregularities during his tenure at the premier varsity.

The court on Friday (February 11) directed the state Higher Education department to give Surappa a copy of the June 28, 2021 report along with the enclosures within 15 days.

The Tamil Nadu government had by an order dated November 11, 2020, constituted a Commission headed by former justice AK Kalaiarasan to go into the allegations levelled against the former VC regarding the alleged irregularities that happened in the varsity during his tenure.

After opposing the institution of the Commission initially, Surappa later said he only wanted a report of the commission’s findings. However, the state government has not furnished the report to him so far.

“It is very strange that the government, for no valid reason, has come up with a rigid stand against furnishing of a report to the petitioner, unmindful of its legal implication that any decision taken at the end of the day would certainly become too vulnerable to judicial interference. The view of the government is antithetical to the concept of reasonableness and fairness in action as embedded in Article 14 of the Constitution,” Justice V Parthiban said.

The court said that after receiving the report, Surappa can submit his objections/explanation within four weeks thereafter.

Also read: TN govt asks Anna University to conduct re-exam for engineering students

In case the government is still interested in pursuing the matter, any action culminating in the advice to the Chancellor in terms of Section 11(4B) of the Anna University Act, 1978, the same shall be done after receipt of the objections/explanation from the petitioner within the time stipulated by this court as above, the judge said.

The court observed that the requirement to comply with the fundamental principles of natural justice, namely that no one should be condemned unheard, is not optional.

“As a matter of fact, this court does not see any rationale as to why the government is shying away from furnishing a copy of the report to the petitioner when in every departmental disciplinary proceedings, the procedure towards furnishing of inquiry report is being followed scrupulously, fearing judicial intervention. When such is the practice and the procedure adopted, the contrived stand of the government in this case is unacceptable in law, presumably because the person involved is the former Vice Chancellor of the state university. The Constitution and the laws of the land are applicable across the spectrum regardless of the position the litigant holds,” the judge said.

Failure to furnish the inquiry report at this stage would inexorably lead to travesty of justice, opposed to fair play and good conscience. Last but not the least, what adverse action could be taken presently after demitting office by the petitioner in April 2021, is in the realm of speculation, he observed.

Nevertheless, on the face of certain detrimental findings in the report, the petitioner’s explanation and his version must be part of the inquiry proceedings, as his vindication, the judge added.

(With agency inputs)