High Court of Madras: The Court while deciding upon the issue of the appointment of Principal in Kamaraj College, Tuticorin, has granted relief to the appellant Principal of a college, who was wrongly removed from his post subsequent to an order of communication sent by the university on the ground that the said order was found to have been forged and fabricated by the advocate representing the respondent. The Bench comprising of Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J. and S Nagamuthu, J. directed its Registrar (Judicial) to bring it to the notice of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry the issue of an advocate who had allegedly fabricated a document to help his clients/respondent win a case in the court against the appellant, who was wrongly removed from his post.
The appellant was appointed in 2005 as a Principal of Kamaraj College, Tuticorin, a private aided college, affiliated to the Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli but that appointment was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court with a direction to follow the University Grants Commissions regulations. In this subsequent process, appellant once again came to be selected for the post and the college called upon the Department of Collegiate Education for grant of approval for the selection, effective from 09.06.2008. Appellant took over charge as principal in anticipation of approval. The issue of approval did not mature and thus, the appellant approached the court with a writ petition (which is still pending). In the meantime, the university issued the impugned communication, dated 25.07.2008, thus, reverting the appellant from the post of principal. Against this order, writ petition was filed by appellant to quash the said communication and an interim stay was granted.
The Court entrusted the police authorities to conduct an inquiry as a suspicion arose about the authenticity of the impugned letter. After the investigation was over it appeared that order was found to have been forged and fabricated by advocate Dhayala Mani representing the respondents. Further, the forgery was committed by the advocate for the benefits of his clients respondent , who when examined as witnesse did not show any collusion in the forgery.
The appellant preferred an appeal since the Single Judge has opined the impugned order/letter as being self explanatory which in fact having been found to be forged, would actually result in a situation, where it would have no force of law. The Court upheld the order as being forged and fabricated and thus held that the so-called order of reversion, which is a forged order, would not stand. The Court while underscoring the unethical conduct of the advocate Dhayala Mani representing the respondents,using stern words, issued direction to the Bar Council of India to take an action against the accused advocate for his unethical conduct, which is a blot on the profession of practicing law within. The Court while disposing the writ appeal directed the Registrar (Judicial) to ensure that these papers are forwarded to the Bar Council within a period of two weeks so that necessary action could be taken. [Mohan Raj v. The Deputy Secretary to Government Higher Education, 2016 SCC OnLine Mad 9511, decided on October 3rd, 2016]