Disciplinary proceedings initiated during service may continue after retirement under applicable service rules.

The petitioner, Dr. S. Ponnusamy, was an Associate Professor of Chemistry at Sri Paramakalyani College, Alwarkurichi. Complaints were made by female M.Sc. students and a parent alleging sexually coloured remarks, inappropriate questioning, humiliation, intimidation, and other misconduct.

A charge memorandum was issued on 30 August 2011, followed by a domestic enquiry in which the charges were found proved. After issuing a show-cause notice, the College Committee imposed the punishment of reduction in rank from Associate Professor to Assistant Professor by proceedings dated 28 October 2011 and forwarded the proposal for approval to the competent education authority.

The petitioner challenged the punishment-related communication in W.P.(MD) No.12671 of 2011. The learned Single Judge directed the competent authority to decide the College’s proposal after hearing both parties and further directed consequential processing of the petitioner’s retirement benefits.

Subsequently, the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education approved the punishment on 6 May 2019. The petitioner then filed W.P.(MD) No.14130 of 2019 challenging the approval and seeking pensionary benefits on the basis of his last pay as Associate Professor. He had retired on superannuation on 31 May 2014.

Whether the disciplinary proceedings and the punishment of reduction in rank were vitiated because the petitioner retired from service before the competent authority granted approval to the punishment.

Whether the domestic enquiry was invalid for non-compliance with the guidelines in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, particularly the requirements relating to a complaints committee and its composition.

Whether the findings of misconduct were perverse or procedurally unsustainable in the absence of violation of natural justice.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction despite the statutory appellate and revisional remedies under Sections 19–21 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976.

Section 18 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 requires teachers and other employees of private colleges to comply with the prescribed code of conduct and permits disciplinary action for its violation; the College Committee may prescribe additional standards of conduct consistent with the Act and Rules.

Sections 19–21 provide appellate, second-appellate, and revisional remedies against disciplinary punishment.

The principles in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241, concern procedural safeguards for complaints of sexual harassment, including an appropriately constituted complaints committee.

The Court relied on S. Andiyannan v. Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, 2015-3-LW-513, Dev Prakash Tewari v. U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board, (2014) 14 SCC 260, and Anant R. Kulkarni v. Y.P. Education Society, (2013) 6 SCC 515, for the principle that continuation of disciplinary proceedings after retirement depends on the governing service rules, while dismissal or removal ordinarily cannot be imposed after retirement.

The Court distinguished State Bank of India v. Navin Kumar Sinha, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3369, because in that case the proceedings were initiated after superannuation, whereas the present proceedings had commenced and the punishment had been imposed while the petitioner was in service.

The Court held that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated in 2011, the enquiry was completed, and the punishment was imposed on 28 October 2011, several years before the petitioner’s retirement in 2014. The subsequent approval by the Joint Director was treated as a continuation of the proceedings and as compliance with the earlier order of the learned Single Judge, rather than as a fresh disciplinary action after retirement.

The petitioner had participated in the enquiry, was permitted to cross-examine the student witnesses, and was given an opportunity to adduce rebuttal evidence; consequently, no breach of natural justice or procedural irregularity was established.

The Court rejected the Vishaka objection because it had not been raised before the learned Single Judge, in the writ-appeal grounds, or in the subsequent writ petition, and because the petitioner had received a full and fair opportunity before an independent Enquiry Officer.

The proven conduct—using sexually coloured and inappropriate language towards female students—was held to constitute a violation of the applicable code of conduct under Section 18 of the 1976 Act.

The criminal case being quashed did not assist the petitioner, since disciplinary proceedings apply the standard of preponderance of probabilities and the criminal proceedings had not determined that the alleged words were never uttered.

Finally, the Court noted that the petitioner had bypassed the statutory appellate and revisional remedies under Sections 19–21 and had not sought permission to pursue them belatedly.

The Court further held that there was no violation of natural justice, no perversity in the findings, and no established breach of the applicable procedural requirements.

Accordingly, W.A.(MD) No.1523 of 2019 and W.P.(MD) No.14130 of 2019 were dismissed, with no order as to costs; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.