Suku.J vs Mahatma Gandhi University
2021 Latest Caselaw 18449 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
   WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 17TH BHADRA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 4297 OF 2013
PETITIONER:

          SUKU.J
          DEPUTY LIBRARIAN, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
          ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM.
          BY ADV SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN


RESPONDENTS:

    1     MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY
          REPRESENTED BY IT REGISTRAR, ATHIRAMPUZHA,
          KOTTAYAM-686562.
    2     THE VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
          ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM-686562
    3     LAILA T.ABRAHAM
          DEPUTY LIBRARIAN, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
          ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM-686562.

          BY ADVS.
          SRI.VARUGHESE M.EASO, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY
          MABLE.C.KURIAN
          SUNIL CYRIAC


          SRI SURIN GEORGE IYPE SC MG


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 4297 OF 2013
                                     2


                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner, holding the charge of Deputy Librarian,

having pay scale of Rs.37400-67000/-, was served with a memo

dated 03.05.2012 seeking explanation on the alleged mis-

conduct of verbally abusing the 3rd respondent as an act of

insubordination and humiliation of a lady officer. The

aforementioned memo was actuated on account of the complaint

(Ext.P4) submitted by the 3rd respondent. Reply to that was

submitted on 22.05.2012 (Ext.P5).

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

submitted that the complaint was lodged after 47 days of the

alleged incident. Respondents were not satisfied with the

explanation. Accordingly, enquiry officer was appointed. Enquiry

officer on 29.09.2012 issued a memo to the petitioner. Petitioner

appeared on the date and recorded the statement and the entire

facts were explained. One of the witnesses Smt.Anu George

stated that no such incident, as alleged by the 3 rd respondent had

taken place. Despite that, petitioner was issued a memo dated

28.11.2012 intimating that the 2nd respondent ie., the Vice WP(C) NO. 4297 OF 2013

Chancellor ordered for withholding of the increment of the

petitioner for a period of one year. Petitioner submitted a detailed

explanation (Ext.P9) which resulted into a communication by the

Assistant Registrar, informing that the Vice-Chancellor has

accorded sanction to withhold one increment. It is contended that

the order is sketchy and sans any reasoning much less the

contents of the reply or cross examination of the witnesses has

not been adverted to. Such orders, therefore, cannot bypass the

judicial scrutiny of this Court. Before accepting the report of the

enquiry, the views of the petitioner were also not taken. Neither

any charge sheet nor statement of allegations was ever issued.

3. On the contrary, Sri.Surin Geroge Iype, learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents countered

aforementioned argument and submitting that, in fact, there was

no order of promotion to the post of Deputy Librarian as it was a

provisional re-designation of the post of Assistant Librarian.

Petitioner was only Assistant Librarian in Selection Grade. The

complaint of the 3rd respondent was enquired into and action of

withholding the increment for a period of one year without

cumulative effect is wholly justified being in accordance with the WP(C) NO. 4297 OF 2013

provisions of the Statute and the University Act.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

appraised the paper book.

5. In order to appreciate whether the order withstands

the judicial scrutiny of this Court or not, the same is extracted

hereinbelow:

"Smt.Laila T.Abraham, Deputy Librarian, University Library had submitted a complaint vide paper read (1) above that, Sri.Suku J., while holding the post of Deputy Librarian, verbally abused her on 21.12.2011 in the University Library. As per paper (2) above, Sri. Suku J, Deputy Librarian was directed to furnish explanation failing which disciplinary proceedings would be initiated against him and in response to the memo the incumbent had furnished his explanation vide the paper read (3) above. The explanation was not found satisfactory and vide the order read (4) above Smt. Padmakumari V, Joint Registrar (Admn I) was appointed to inquire the said incident. The inquiry officer had submitted their report with the findings that the alleged incident has occurred and is against the office discipline and Sri. Suku J was guilty of insubordination. Accordingly the Hon'ble Vice Chancellor has ordered to withhold the incumbent's increment for one year without cumulative effect and Sri. Suku J, Deputy Librarian was directed to furnish explanation if any, for not imposing the minor penalty vide the paper (6) above. In response to that Sri. Suku J had submitted a representation vide the paper read (7) above.

The explanation was not found satisfactory and summarily WP(C) NO. 4297 OF 2013

rejected.

Sanction has therefore, been accorded by the Vice Chancellor to withhold the increment of Sri.Suku J., Deputy Librarian, for one year without cumulative effect.

Orders issued accordingly."

On perusal of the order, it is evident that no reasoning

much less any reference to the contents of the reply of the

petitioner or the statement of the witnesses alleged to have been

recorded in the enquiry have been referred to therein. The

officers at the helm of affairs are legitimately expected to give

reasons and cannot be permitted to pass such sketchy non-

speaking orders. Accordingly, Ext.P10 is quashed. The Writ

Petition stands allowed.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE nak WP(C) NO. 4297 OF 2013

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4297/2013

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P 1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT OF FIXATION OF PAY.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ANNEXURE TO G.O.(P) NO.

86/2011/FIN. DATED 26/02/2011 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 03/05/2012. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER DATED 22/05/2012.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 29/09/2012. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY SMT.

ANU GEORGE.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 28/11/2012. Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 06/12/2012.

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 11.02.2013.

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R1(A) TRUE COPY OF RESOLUTION VIDE ITEM OA NO.

31/11/05 IN MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SYNDICATE HELD ON 30/6/2011.

Exhibit R1(B) TRUE COPY OF UO NO. 3501/AV-1/2011/ADMN (5732) DT. 5.7.2011.

Exhibit R1(C) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. ADAV-1/5732/2011 FROM THE REGISTRAR, ,M.G. UNIVERSITY TO THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPT. OF HIGHER EDUCATION GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

Exhibit R1(D) TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DT. 24/1/2012 BY SMT. LAILA T ABRAHAM.

Exhibit R1(E) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO. 3574/AV-

1/2012/ADMN DATED 3/5/2012.

Exhibit R1(F) THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DT.

SUBMITTED BY SMT. PADMAKUMARI V. JOINT REGISTRAR M.G. UNIVERSITY.