Kerala High Court

Dr.Sreejarajmohan vs State Of Kerala on 28 May, 2024

WPC.No.6729/24                            1




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
  TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1946
                      WP(C) NO. 6729 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

             DR.SREEJA RAJMOHAN,
             AGED 58 YEARS,
             ASST.PROFESSOR (DAIRY SCIENCE) KERALA
             AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR-
             680 656, RESIDING AT ANUGRAH,5/2429, U.K.SANKUNNY
             ROAD, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 001.

             BY ADVS.A.C.KURIAKOSE
             K.G.SARATHKUMAR


RESPONDENTS:

     1       STATE OF KERALA,
             REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
             AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, VIKASBHAVAN,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695 033.
     2       KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY (KAU),
             REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR/PENSION SANCTIONING
             AUTHORITY, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY,
             VELLANIKARA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 656.
     3       THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE,
             REPRESENTED BY ITS EX-OFFICIO CHAIRMAN/ VICE
             CHANCELLOR, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY,
             THRISSUR, PIN - 680 656.
             BY ADV.M.V.ANANDAN


      THIS    WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)      HAVING   COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION     ON   28.05.2024,    THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC.No.6729/24                      2




                         JUDGMENT

The petitioner was an Assistant Professor (Dairy Science)

of Kerala Agricultural University, Vellanikkara, Thrissur, and

she joined the service on 02.12.1988. According to the

petitioner, she was diagnosed with schizophrenia in the year

2000 and she was under medical care since then.

2. Later, the petitioner availed leave without allowance

for the period from 01.03.2005 and later converted the leave

from 31.01.2009 to 28.02.2010 as LWA for taking employment

abroad and it was further extended up to 28.02.2015. All the

said leave were sanctioned by the orders issued by the

authorities in this regard. However, after the expiry of the

period of leave on 28.12.2015, she did not rejoin duty, which

ultimately resulted in the initiation of disciplinary proceedings

as evidenced by Ext.P5 Memo of Charges. In Ext.P5, the

specific charge has been framed against the petitioner to which

Ext.P6 reply has been submitted by the petitioner. On the basis

of the same, an enquiry was conducted, and it culminated in

the Ext.P7 enquiry report. Later, on the basis of the same,

Ext.P8 order was issued, imposing a penalty of removal from

University service, which shall not be a disqualification for

future in Clause 23 (vii) of KAU Statute SRO 293/72. The claim

submitted by the petitioner seeking invalid pension was also

rejected by the University as per Ext.P9. This writ petition is

submitted by the petitioner in such circumstances.

3. Respondents 2 and 3 have placed on record a

detailed counter affidavit, in which they justify the steps taken

by the University that ultimately resulted in the petitioner's

termination of service. Documents that ultimately led to the

said finding were also produced.

4. Heard Sri.Kuriakose A.C., learned counsel for the

petitioner, and Sri.M.V.Anand, learned Standing Counsel for the

respondent University.

5. The main contention raised by the learned counsel

for the petitioner is that the petitioner was having certain

ailments, which resulted in failure on her part to rejoin duty

after the period of leave expired on 28.02.2015. It was also

pointed out that even though application for extension of leave

or to permit her to avail voluntary retirement were sought,

same were declined. On going through Ext.P7 report, it can be

seen that, even though a contention was raised by the

petitioner with respect to her ailments, no documents to

substantiate the same were produced.

6. Therefore, before the enquiring authority, absolutely

no materials were available to show that the petitioner was

under treatment for psychosis. More over, it is also stated that

in the reply submitted by the petitioner that she was not in a

position to rejoin duty as she had entered into a contract to

serve civil service until the retirement age. Therefore, she

sought permission to extend the period of Leave Without

Allowance or to take voluntary retirement. However, the

Registrar denied the request for voluntary retirement as her

service was for a period lessor than twenty years. It is evident

that, the same has not been challenged by the petitioner. It is

also discernible that, during the hearing conducted through

Zoom on 15.03.2022, the enquiry committee granted the

opportunity to produce the documents/medical certificate

showing the treatment of the petitioner, which she did not

availed of. Ext.P7 enquiry report was submitted in such

circumstances with the conclusion that the petitioner defaulted

in service and therefore, punishment was recommended. Later,

as per Ext.R2(d), the show cause notice was issued by the

Registrar under Clause 40(1)(b) of SRO 293/72 of the Kerala

Agricultural University, conveying to the petitioner about the

penalty proposed and requiring her to submit representation, if

any, against the proposed penalty. There was no response to

Ext.R2 (d) as well and the final order as per Ext.P8 imposing

the penalty of removal of the petitioner from University service

which shall not be a disqualification for future employment, was

issued in such circumstances. Thus, it is evident that, despite

the fact that ample opportunity was granted to the petitioner,

no documents were produced before the authorities concerned

to substantiate the physical/mental ailments of the petitioner.

7. The learned Standing Counsel places reliance upon

various provisions in Appendix XII and XII A of KSR Part I & II

and Ext.R2(c), issued by the Government with respect to the

steps to be taken in the case of unauthorized absence. It was

pointed out that, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is

justified in the light of the aforesaid statutory provisions. After

carefully going through the materials placed on record and the

findings entered into by the authority as evidenced by Ext.P7, I

do not find any legal infirmity in the same. As far as the scope

of this Court to interfere in the disciplinary proceedings is

concerned, it is very limited and only if there is any procedural

irregularity in the proceedings in question, which violates the

principles of natural justice, interference can be made. In this

case, it is evident from the records that ample opportunity has

been given to the petitioner to produce necessary records, but

despite the same, no documents were produced to substantiate

her medical condition. Therefore, I do not find any legal

infirmity in the orders passed.

8. Yet another claim put forward by the learned counsel

for the petitioner is invalid pension, which was rejected as per

Ext.P9 order passed by the authorities concerned. Even though

the learned Standing Counsel contended that the petitioner is

not entitled to the said claim due to various statutory

provisions, the Ext.P9 order rejecting the same would indicate

that no reasons are mentioned therein for rejecting the said

claim. It is a non-speaking order. The learned Standing

Counsel brought the attention of this Court to the averments

made by the University in the counter affidavit in paragraph 8

of the counter affidavit by placing reliance upon Rule 42(1) of

KSR Part III. According to him, as per the said provision, the

benefit of invalid pension can be granted to an employee who

was certified by a duly constituted Medical Board or Medical

Officer to the effect that he or she is incapacitated by a

contagious disease or physical or mental disability or infirmity

for the public service or for the particular branch of it to which

he belongs. It was pointed out that the said benefit is

applicable only in respect of the person already in service. In

this case, even though the service of the petitioner was

terminated with effect from 30.01.2023, the application was

submitted on 02.03.2023.

However, Ext.P9 does not contain any reason as stated in

the counter affidavit. In such circumstances, as Ext.P9 is a non-

speaking order, the same has to be reconsidered by the

competent officer under the 2 nd respondent. The reliefs sought

by the petitioner with respect to the disciplinary proceedings

which ultimately finalized is hereby dismissed. With regard to

the claim for an invalid pension, as the impugned order, namely

Ext.P9, was a non-speaking order, the same is quashed, and the

competent officer under the 2nd respondent shall reconsider

the said claim after giving the petitioner an opportunity for

being heard. A decision in this regard shall be taken within a

period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

Sd/-

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE DG/1.6.24

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6729/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL REPORTS DT.

                   9.1.2023  &   5.5.2022   AND OF   THE
                   COMMUNITY   MENTAL   HEALTH  RECOVERY
                   SERVICES, NORTH EAST HANTS, UNITED
                   KINGDOM

Exhibit2           TRUE      COPY    OF    THE      ORDER
                   NO.GA/C3/469/2005        DT.24/03/2010
                   SANCTIONING LWA FOR THE PERIOD ENDING
                   28.2.2015

Exhibit P3         TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE
                   2ND     RESPONDENT    NO.GA/C1/9565/13
                   DT.17/05/2019

Exhibit P4         TRUE COPY COMMUNICATION OF THE 2ND
                   RESPONDENT            NO.GA/C1/4676/2019

DT.07/09/2019 REJECTING THE REQUEST FOR RETIREMENT

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES & STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT NO.GA/L3/12711/2021 DT.20/09/2021

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.26/09/2021

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ENQUIRY COMMITTEE

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT NO. GA/L3/12711/21 DT.30/01/2023, TERMINATING THE SERVICE OF THE PETITIONER

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE

2ND RESPONDENT NO. GA/L3/12711/2021 DT.19/04/2023 REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.10/07/2023

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

Exhibit R2(d) True copy of Notice No.GA/L3/12711/21 dated 06/10/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit11 TRUE COPY OFLETTER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT NO.AF2/247/2023/AGRI.