Dr.Johnson R vs University Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 3438 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

     MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 12TH MAGHA,1942

                       WP(C).No.28736 OF 2020(N)


PETITIONER/S:

                DR.JOHNSON R
                AGED 65 YEARS
                ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY,
                UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034.

                BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034.
                REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

      2         THE VICE CHANCELOOR
                UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034.

      3         THE REGISTRAR
                UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034.

                R1-3 BY SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD          ON
01.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.28736 OF 2020(N)

                                  2




                            JUDGMENT

Dated this the 1st day of February 2021

Imposition of minor penalty with the punishment of

withholding of two increments without cumulative effect and

not granting of guideship to the petitioner for next five years

imposed vide impugned order dated 29.11.2019 is under

challenge in this writ petition.

2. As per the notification dated 28.9.2020, the petitioner

was appointed as Lecturer in Psychology, which was later re-

designated as Assistant Professor. The selection was as per the

community quota. Prior to the passing of the impugned order,

the University cancelled his appointment leading to challenge

vide W.P.(C) No.540/2014. This Court vide judgment dated

21.5.2015, Ext.P1 allowed the writ petition by quashing the

impugned order therein with a further direction to treat the

petitioner in continuity of service with all consequential

benefits and declaration of probation in the category of

Lecturer in Psychology with a rider that the judgment will not

stand in the way of University in initiating disciplinary WP(C).No.28736 OF 2020(N)

proceedings against the petitioner, if insufficient grounds

existed.

3. On denial of promotion another writ petition

No.3876/2018 has been filed and the same is pending

consideration before this Court. Vide order dated 30.7.2018,

the petitioner was suspended from service, which was

assailed before this Court vide W.P.(C) No.24968/2018. This

Court vide judgment dated 23.10.2018, Ext.P2, noticing the

fact that the petitioner was suspended since 13.7.2018

served with memo of charges, instead of examining the

veracity of suspension being in the stream of Psychology, by

keeping the interest of the University, ordered for

reinstatement of the petitioner subject to the ongoing

disciplinary action. The petitioner was also warned against

making erratic behavior in the Department or in the

University. It was also made clear that in case if he is found

to be indulging into activities as mentioned in the memo of

charges, the competent authority would not be precluded

from revoking the order of reinstatement at an appropriate

time. The aforementioned judgment was assailed in writ WP(C).No.28736 OF 2020(N)

appeal No.96/2019. The writ appeal vide Ext.P3, was

disposed of with an observation that the findings of the

Single Judge shall not be treated as findings entered against

the appellant in any other proceedings with a further

direction that the department proceedings initiated shall be

completed untrammeled by any of the observations made in

the judgment.

4. Three persons namely, Head and Assistant

Professor and two Assistant Professors submitted a

complaint before the Vice Chancellor of the University on

27.9.2018 highlighting the illegality in the appointment of

the petitioner as being not in conformity with Chapter 3,

Statute 4, Sub Section 4 of the Kerala University First

Statutes 1977 and history of misconduct and unethical

behaviour of the petitioner throughout his career inside and

outside the University. The students in the Department

raised complaints of unbecoming manner during the

Department Council meetings. The complaints also pertained

to lack of knowledge, incompetency in teaching, indecent

behavior towards female students, threatening and WP(C).No.28736 OF 2020(N)

harassing of students, reducing internal assessment marks,

spreading rumours and gossips against female staff etc. It

was also complained that even after his recent suspension on

17.7.2018, he barged into the Department office, behaved

rudely towards the female office assistant and other staff.

5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner submitted that the contents of Ext.P4 reveals that

it was deliberate, intentional or malicious. On the basis of

the complaint, petitioner was suspended from service as per

order dated 29.11.2019, Ext.P6, which was challenged

before this Court in W.P.(C)No.32701/2019. This Court vide

judgment dated 19.12.2019 directed the respondents to

complete the disciplinary proceedings within a period of two

months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the

judgment. During the pendency of the writ petition he was

served with memo of charges and statement of allegations

based on the complaint as evident from Ext.P8. An enquiry

Officer was appointed, Vice Chancellor placed the matter

before the Standing Committee of the Syndicate on Staff,

Equipment and Building for consideration and WP(C).No.28736 OF 2020(N)

recommendation. According to the petitioner, the

aforementioned action is in violation of 1977 Statutes, which

provides the manner in which the disciplinary proceedings

are to be conducted for imposition of major and major

penalties. The petitioner has given detailed explanation vide

Ext.P10. The Standing Committee submitted report to the

disciplinary authority, resulting into issuance of show cause

notice dated 25.6.2020. The same was replied vide Ext.P12,

to be against the provisions of the statute and requested to

reinstate in service.

6. It was next contended that though the Syndicate

had appointed a sub committee for the reasons best known

to them resolved to constitute another sub committee

consisting of different members for the purpose of detailed

discussion and appropriate recommendations. An interim

application bearing No.3 of 2020 was submitted on behalf of

the respondents in W.P.(C) No.32701/2019 for extension of

time for completing the disciplinary proceedings. This Court

granted time till 26.11.2019 for completing the proceedings.

It is in that back ground Ext.P16 impugned order has been WP(C).No.28736 OF 2020(N)

passed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit

that Ext.P16 is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable much less

there is jurisdictional error as the petitioner was never

served with memo of charges with regard to non-grant of

guideship for a period of five years. Even though it is a minor

penalty, the imposition thereof has impact upon his

promotion. The complaint was actuated from malice and

jealousy being incessantly nursed. Though the memo of

charges and statement of allegations reveal no reference of

Dr.Immanuel Thomas, but conclusion of the report arrived at

by the committee reveals that the aforementioned retired

Professor had a major role in setting up false complaints.

The Standing committee did not go into the reply statement

filed to memo of charges, but simply accepted the statement

of students and found involvement of the petitioner in the

alleged misconduct. As per the statute only the Syndicate

can conduct enquiry or appoint enquiry officer. There is no

provision of formation of standing committee. Thus, there is

a clear violation of Statutory provisions ie. Statute 32 of

Chapter IV Part -II of the Kerala University First Statutes, WP(C).No.28736 OF 2020(N)

1977. No proper enquiry was conducted by the University as

per the provisions of the Statute. Initiation of proceedings, is

without any basis and liable to be set aside.

7. Per Contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of

the respondents submitted that there was a categoric

direction by this Court to complete the enquiry proceedings

within a period of two years and there had been spate of

litigations, the petitioner has left no stone unturned in

availing legal remedy resulting into direction for

reinstatement. The second suspension was passed on

account of the erratic misbehaviour not only to the students

but also to the colleagues as well. The PG students were

imparted lecture in vernacular, which was not

understandable by foreign students. The allegation of

charges was not based upon some suspicion, but on actual

incidents. Sufficient opportunity was accorded to the

petitioner to appear before the standing committee. There is

no allegation of malafide or biasness against the members of

the committee, much less the violation of principles of

natural justice. The appointment of the sub committee was WP(C).No.28736 OF 2020(N)

the only way out to finish the matter, as the petitioner was

indulging into delaying the matter for one reason or another

and had actually appeared before the authority. The

jurisdiction of the committee was never assailed or agitated.

8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and

appraised the paper books.

I am of the view that this is not a fit case warranting

interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

No allegations of malafide or biasness have been levelled

against the sub committee rather petitioner participated and

admitted his guilt. On perusal of the grounds, no explanation

has come forth regarding the allegations or no attempt has

been made to over come. On the contrary, sub committee

constituted by the syndicate reiterated the views of the

enquiry committee and found that the allegations had

correctly been proved. Any person who had alleged to have

made out the case of some kind of animosity or jealousy

ought to have approached this Court with clean hands,

placing all relevant materials. I would not be commenting

further on the conduct of the petitioner as it may prejudice WP(C).No.28736 OF 2020(N)

the enquiry proceedings. The disputed questions of facts

with regard to the findings arrived at by the committee can

also not be undertaken under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India. I do not find any merit in the arguments advanced

by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition is

accordingly dismissed.

Sd/

AMIT RAWAL

JUDGE

Jm/ WP(C).No.28736 OF 2020(N)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.05.2015 IN WPC NO.540/2014 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.10.2018 IN WPC NO.24968/2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.1.2019 IN WA NO.96/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 27.09.2018 FILED BY DR. JASSEER AND OTHERS OBTAINED UNDER THE RTI ACT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE CHAIRMAN, CSS, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA DATED 7.11.2019.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER DATED 29.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.12.2019 IN WPC NO 32701/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS DATED 9.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE TO THE SYNDICATE OF THE UNIVERSITY.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 17.12.2019 TO THE MEMO OF CHARGES SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 25.06.2020 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE UNIVERSITY.

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 30.06.2020 TO EXT.P11 SHOW CAUSE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE SUB COMMITTEE ON THE BASIS OF THE RESOLUTION OF WP(C).No.28736 OF 2020(N)

THE SYNDICATE MEETING HELD ON 24/8/2020.

EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE REGISTRAR TO THE CONVENER, STANDING COMMITTEE DATED 25.09.2020.

EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.10.2020 IN WPC NO.32701/2019 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY IMPOSING THE PUNISHMENT OF BARING INCREMENTS AS WELL AS THE DECISION NOT TO GRANT GUIDESHIP FOR A PERIOD OF THE FIVE YEARS.

EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.06.2020 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY TO DR.IMMANUEL THOMAS.