Kerala High Court
Padma Patrick Pereira vs The Manager, St.Xavier'S ... on 15 February, 2024
W.P.(C) No. 34019/2022
..1..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 26TH MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 34019 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
PADMA PATRICK PEREIRA, AGED 44 YEARS,
D/O.PATRICK LUIES PEREIRA, PADMA VIHAR, KARIYIL,
KAZHAKUTTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695582,
(WORKING AS SENIOR CLERK, ST.XAVIER'S COLLEGE,
THUMBA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM)
BY ADV. SRI. M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE MANAGER, ST.XAVIER'S COLLEGE,THUMBA
THUMBA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695586.
2 THE PRINCIPAL, ST.XAVIER'S COLELGE,
THUMBA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695586.
3 VARGHESE JOSEPH,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MASS
COMMUNICATION, ST.XAVIER'S COLLEGE, THUMBA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695586.
4 THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS,
PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
ADV. SRI. THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC
ADVS.M/S.MATHEW B. KURIAN & K.T.THOMAS
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 15.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No. 34019/2022
..2..
MOHAMMED NIAS C. P. , J.
==============================
W.P.(C) No. 34019 of 2022
==============================
Dated this the 15th day of February, 2024
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was working as a Senior Clerk at St. Xavier's
College, Thumba. She was appointed by the 1 st respondent - Manager.
The 2nd respondent - the Principal of the College, issued a memo seeking
her explanation on the basis of a complaint received from one Smt. Neha
Thomas. Though the petitioner submitted an explanation, the
2nd respondent, dissatisfied with the reply, appointed the 3 rd respondent as
the Enquiry Officer. The 3rd respondent issued a charge memo without
any statement of allegation and started the enquiry proceedings. The
petitioner's contention is that the entire proceedings initiated are without
jurisdiction and are contrary to the provisions of The Kerala University
(Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of Non-Teaching Staff)
..3..
First Statutes, 1979. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
only an educational agency, being the appointing authority, can initiate
the proceedings, and the charge memo issued by the 3 rd respondent
Enquiry Officer is completely without any authority or jurisdiction. At
any rate, the petitioner's contention is that it is the Manager who is the
appointing authority, and therefore, he alone can issue the memo or take
any steps as contemplated in Statutes 69, 71 & 72 of the First Statutes,
1979, for conducting an enquiry against the petitioner.
2. A reading of Statutes 69 to 72 would clearly show that it is only
the educational agency who can initiate proceedings against teaching and
non-teaching staff. At any rate, the memo issued by the 3 rd respondent, as
rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is without
any authority as the same is not done by the educational agency. Under
such circumstances, the writ petition is only to be allowed. All
proceedings initiated from Ext.P-4 culminating in Ext.P-18 are quashed.
However, liberty is granted to the educational agency to initiate
appropriate proceedings against the petitioner in the manner prescribed in
the Statutes.
..4..
3. Needless to say, there is no consideration of the matter on merits
and it is only on the ground of the lack of power on the part of
respondents 2 & 3 that the proceedings have been quashed.
Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is allowed.
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C. P.,
JUDGE
MMG
..5..
APPENDIX OF WP(C).NO.34019/2022
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO FIRST
RESPONDENT DATED 10.4.2021
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE
SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
DATED 23.6.2022
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 13.7.2022
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO. HA/P/424/19
ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED
18.7.2022
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 21.7.2022
EXHIBIT P6 RUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. HA/P/424/19
APPOINTING THIRD RESPONDENT AS ENQUIRY
COMMISSIONER DATED 30.7.2022
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER DATED 31.8.2022
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 5.9.2022
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED
14.9.2022
..6..
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
4TH RESPONDENT DATED 22.9.2022
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SENT BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED
14.9.2022
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
15.9.2022
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED
23.9.2022
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
27.9.2022
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED
29.9.2022
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
30.9.2022
EXHIBIT P17 RUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.7.2022
ISSUED BY THE CONTROLLER OF
EXAMINATION, KERALA UNIVERSITY TO THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.
G2/2/20/NTS/2021 DATED 28.10.2022
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER.
..7..
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
25.7.2022 SUBMITTED BY 2ND RESPONDENT
TO 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R1 B TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
26.7.2022 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO
2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R1 C TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED
20.10.2022 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG
WITH ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 19.10.2022.
EXHIBIT R1 D TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
28.10.2022 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.
