Sherlymole P.B vs Institute Of Human Resources ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4447 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

     MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 19TH MAGHA,1942

                       WP(C).No.28381 OF 2014(W)


PETITIONER/S:

                SHERLYMOLE P.B.
                W/O.JOHNSON PHILIP, EDACKAMANNIL HOUSE, GRACE
                GARDEN,THRIKKAKARA P.O., KOCHI - 682 021 (ASSOCIATE
                PROFESSOR(CHEMISTRY) MODEL ENGINEERING COLLEGE,
                INSTITUTE OFHUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT,
                THRIKKAKARA).

                BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
                PRAJOE TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAMREPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR - 695
                014.

      2         THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
                INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
                PRAJOETOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695 014
                REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

      3         THE DIRECTOR
                INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT,PRAJOE
                TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695 014.

      4         THE PRINCIPAL
                MODEL ENGINEERING COLLEGE, INSTITUTE OF HUMANRESOURCE
                DEVELOPMENT, THRIKKAKARA.

      5         STATE OF KERALA
                REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,DEPARTMENT OF
                HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENTSECRETARIAT,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

                R1 BY SRI.DEEPU THANKAN, SC, IHRD
                R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL
                R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD             ON
08.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.28381 OF 2014(W)




                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 8th day of February 2021

Challenge has been laid to Exts.P13 & P14 minutes of the

executive committee whereby it was resolved, to initiate major

penalty proceedings and consequential show cause notice issued by

the 3rd respondent. The facts leading the present writ petition are as

follows:

2. The petitioner while working as Lecturer in Chemistry at

Model Engineering College, Institute of Human Resources

Development, Thrikkakara, UGC pay package was introduced by

respondent Nos.1 and 2 to Arts and Science faculties in engineering

colleges with effect from 1.7.2006 onwards. Pursuant to the same, the

post of lecturer was re-designated as Assistant Professor and the post

of Assistant Professor was re-designated as Associate Professor.

While in service the Director of Institute vide Ext.P1 dated 8.10.2013

served memo of charges on the petitioner on the allegation of having

not engaged in the duties in Semester 1 Bio Medical Class as per the

time table stipulated by respondent No.4 and in that background of

the matter, had issued a show cause notice of initiation of action as WP(C).No.28381 OF 2014(W)

contemplated in Rule 15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification,

Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960.

3. Sri. Subash Chand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of

the petitioner submitted that along with the memo, allegation of

charges were also served. As per the Government Order dated

12.3.2012, the work load of an Associate Professor was specifically

fixed at 14 hours per week. On the basis of the serving of memo of

charges, the Department decided to follow procedure under Section

16 of the Rules for imposition of minor penalty and passed an order

dated 8.1.2014 of censure and recovery from pay of the salary

corresponding to duty hours during which she had allegedly

abstained from duty. The aforementioned order was assailed by the

petitioner filing a statutory appeal under Rule 23 of the Rules as

evidenced from Ext.P7. Interim stay was passed, but in the meantime

steps for recovery for salary was taken necessitating the petitioner to

approach this Court vide W.P.(c)No.3251/2014. This Court vide

judgment dated 4.2.2014 disposed of the writ petition and issued

directions to the respondents to decide the appeal after affording

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of two

months. It was contended that the respondents have not adhered to

the aforementioned directions, but called upon the petitioner to

appear for personal hearing before the 3 rd respondent. The petitioner WP(C).No.28381 OF 2014(W)

gave a detailed reply vide Ext.P10. The respondent No.3 after the

personal hearing has directed respondent No.4 to implement Ext.P6

order and effect recovery from the salary of the petitioner. While so,

petitioner filed a contempt of court proceedings against the

respondent as Contempt Case (c) No.520/2014 and pending the said

contempt of court proceedings, respondent No.3 had issued an order

dated 4.6.2014 directing the 4 th respondent to refund the amount

recovered from the salary of the petitioner. In view of the said order

and taking into account the remorse expressed, the contempt case

was closed. The impugned action of the respondents is not only

absurd but malicious, arbitrary much less opaque which compelled

the petitioner to approach this Court again. This Court vide interim

order dated 29.10.2014 suspended Exts.P13 and P14.

4. Per contra learned Counsel for the respondents submitted

that there had been a misunderstanding on the part of the executive

committee in disposing of the appeal without complying with the

principles of natural justice, ie. in letter and spirit of the order Ext.P8

and expressed remorse in correcting the same as ample opportunity

would be given to the petitioner to represent before the executive

committee by ordering restitution of appeal Ext.P7.

5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and appraised

the paper books.

WP(C).No.28381 OF 2014(W)

6. The facts leading to memo of charges, imposition of major

penalty and thereafter censure, recovery of money and repayment of

the money after filing of the contempt matter and the order of this

Court directing the appellate authority to afford opportunity of

hearing while deciding the appeal filed under Rule 23 of Rule 1960

Rules are not in dispute. Ext.P13 minutes as regards the petitioner

reads thus:

"Item No.EC-91/922: IHRD - Sm.Sherly Mole.P.B. Associate Professor in Chemistry, Model Engineering College Ernakulam - -Hearing note submitted before Executive Committee - Reg (No.EA3/11031/2013/HRD)

The Executive committee resolved to initiate major disciplinary action to terminate Smt.Sherlymole P.B. Associate Professor in Chemistry, Model Engineering College, Ernakulam from IHRD service"

7. On a perusal of Ext.P13, it is discernible that there has not

been any compliance of the direction of this Court. The action of the

executive committee is wholly atrocious, malicious much less opaque.

They are legitimately expected to comply with the principles of

natural justice, particularly when there were directions of this Court.

Though there is a clear contempt on their part, I refrain from taking

action in view of the fact that the learned Counsel representing the

respondents expressed remorse.

For the reasons aforementioned, Ext.P13 to the extent it relates WP(C).No.28381 OF 2014(W)

to the petitioner and Ext.P14 are set aside. Ext.P7 is restored to

original position. The executive committee is directed to decide the

appeal strictly in compliance with the directions contained in Ext.P3.

It is reiterated that in case there is any disobedience to the

aforementioned order of this Court, this Court will be constrained to

take action under Article 215 of the constitution of India as and when

the alleged willful disobedience is brought to its notice. The writ

petition stands disposed of.

                                                 Sd/

                                             AMIT RAWAL

Jm/                                             JUDGE
 WP(C).No.28381 OF 2014(W)




                            APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1           EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES
                     AND STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS DATED
                     8.10.2013 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY
                     RESPONDENT NO.3

EXHIBIT P2           EXT.P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER

BEARING G.O.(MS)NO.87/2012/H.EDN DATED 12.3.2012

EXHIBIT P3 EXT.P-3: TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMISSION DATED 9.7.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.4

EXHIBIT P4 EXT.P-4: TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMISSION DATED 30.8.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.4

EXHIBIT P5 EXT.P-5: TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENCE DATED 21.10.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.3

EXHIBIT P6 EXT.P-6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.1.2014 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3

EXHIBIT P7 EXT.P-7: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 22.1.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.2

EXHIBIT P8 EXT.P-8: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 4.2.2014 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.3251 OF 2014

EXHIBIT P9 EXT.P-9: TRUE COPY OF THE PERSONAL HEARING NOTICE DATED 4.4.2014 SERVED ON THE PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P10 EXT.P-10: TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.2

EXHIBIT P11 EXT.P-11: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE DATED 6.5.2014 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4

EXHIBIT P12 EXT.P-12: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.6.2014 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 WP(C).No.28381 OF 2014(W)

EXHIBIT P13 EXT.P-13: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 91ST MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF IHRD DATED 26.8.2014 HELD AT MASCOT HOTEL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

EXHIBIT P14 EXT.P-14: TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE MEMO DATED 30.9.2014 THUS ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3