Anna University Registrar fined for contempt

In another case of contempt of court, the Madras High Court has directed the Anna University, Registrar, to pay a fine of Rs 3,000 within seven days for wilfully disobeying its order.

Justice S Nagamuthu gave the directive on the petition filed by S Chandramohan against the Registrar of Anna University, S Ganesan for allegedly not complying with the Court’s earlier order. As per the case, the court had passed an order on June 13, 2014 directing the University to appoint to Dr Chandramohan as professor in the Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering (EEE) as against the vacancy earmarked for Scheduled Caste (Aruhththiyar). 

The High Court had specifically directed the Registrar, Anna University, to pass the order of appointing Chandramohan as professor within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order passed by it. Incidentally, the government filed an appeal against the above order which was dismissed and the SLP filed in Supreme Court against the appeal was also dismissed on March 18, 2016. Following this, Chandramohan filed the contempt petition. 

When the matter came up on Thursday, the Additional Advocate General appearing for the Registrar submitted that Dr Chandramohan was promoted as professor in the Department of EEE with effect from June 25, 2012. 

In response, the petitioner alleged that though the Registrar had issued an order promoting him as professor, it is yet to be approved by the Syndicate of the University and thus he has not been extended the monetary benefits and other service benefits for the post.

Taking strong exception to this Justice S Nagamuthu said “This would clearly show that there has been no compliance with the order of this Court dated June 13, 2014. Though almost more than 2 ½ years have gone after passing the order it is not explained to the court as to why the order has not been complied with. Thus, I am satisfied that the Registrar has committed contempt by deliberately violating the order of this Court.” 

The Judge also held that “The Registrar has dragged on the matter to the extent possible by simply disobeying the order of this Court. Thus, I find that the respondent has committed contempt of the order of this Court. Accordingly, I hold him guilty of contempt.”  

The fine should be paid within a period of seven days from March 16. “In case the contemnor fails to comply, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days,” the judge said and posted the matter to March 22 for compliance.

Close in the heels of the Madras High Court coming down heavily on officials for not complying with court orders before summoning the Chennai City Commissioner of Police S George for contempt, the officer has confirmed that the would present himself before the court on March 22.

Justice N Kirubakaran had slammed the Commissioner of Police for having failed to comply with a court order asking him to extend police protection to a whistle-blower. The judge had also categorically turned down pleas by advocate-general R Muthukumaraswamy and other top law officers to exempt personal appearance after asking them ‘not to embarrass the court’ as the summon was more procedural. 

On Friday morning, additional advocate-general Venkataramani informed the judge that George would appear at 2.15 pm on March 22. The matter relates to a writ petition filed by a Injambakkam resident Pon Thangavelu, highlighting the fact that the local councillor of Chennai corporation Annamalai had been paying a meagre Rs 55 to Rs 110 as annual property tax for his five bungalows, while it would cost several thousand rupees for other residents. 

The case led the court to call for property details of all councillors in the past 10 years. It also came to light that the said councillor owned properties worth Rs 4 crores but declared as nil in his election affidavit. However, with the scope of the case expanding and with it leading to rubbing politicians on the wrong side, the court had directed the CoP to provide security to the whistle-blower as he feared a threat to his life. But the direction for protection was ignored resulting in a contempt plea being moved by the petitioner’s counsel A P Suryaprakasam leading to the present summons to CoP George.