Kerala High Court
University Of Kerala vs Thankamony Ponnaya on 24 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1943
RP NO. 344 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.07.2019 IN WP(C) 15240/2019 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/NOT A PARTY IN THE WRIT PETITION:
1 UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 034
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
BY ADV SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THANKAMONY PONNAYA
AGED 66 YEARS, S/O. PANNAYA RESIDING AT NQ17-4,
PAMBUTHUKKIVILLAI, VANDALIKKODE P.O., KALKULAM,
KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU-629161.
2 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE IN CHARGE OF VIGILANCE AND
ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE ROAD,
SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PMG JUNCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695033.
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, MG ROAD, PALAYAM
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001.
4 V.R.SAJI KUMAR,
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. RAGHAVAN NAIR, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, CHRISTIAN
COLELGE, KATTAKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RESIDING AT
SHANKARA VILASAM, VELLARADA POST,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695505.
5 THE HIGHER EDUCATION SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.
RP NO. 344 OF 2021
2
6 THE MANAGER,
CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, COLLEGE ROAD, KATTAKADA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695572.
BY ADV. SMT.REKHA S., SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RP NO. 344 OF 2021
3
ORDER
Dated this the 24th day of February, 2022
This Court by judgment dated 08.07.2019
disposed of the writ petition on the basis of a
statement filed by the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, VACB Special Cell, Thiruvananthapuram, that
the 3rd respondent was not a public servant and the
allegations established against him was that he had
purchased/sold a portion of land without sanction
from the Management. It was accordingly held that
it is a matter which falls within the domain of
concerned Management to take disciplinary action, if
any. However, the judgment of this Court indicates
that the writ petition was disposed of with an
observation that appropriate action will have to be
taken by the concerned University.
2. The University has preferred this review on
the ground that the University is not the disciplinary
authority in relation to a teacher of the College and
on the other hand, it is the Management which has to
RP NO. 344 OF 2021
take action, if required.
3. After having heard the learned Counsel for
the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I
am satisfied that the University is well justified in
taking such a contention.
Having considered this, I am inclined to allow the
review petition. The judgment of this Court dated
08.07.2019 stands recalled and fresh judgment will
be issued by substituting the words "concerned
University" appearing in the last line of the second
page of the judgment by "concerned Management /
Corporate Educational Agency". Further, in 12th line
from the top, the term "University" will stand
substituted by "Management / Corporate Educational
Agency". Issue fresh judgment accordingly.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS
JUDGE
SKP/24.02
RP NO. 344 OF 2021
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: NIL
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A.TO JUDGE
