Kerala High Court
Director vs Dr. Vinu Thomas on 25 October, 2024
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
1
W.A.No.1698 of 2024
2024:KER:79701
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024/3RD KARTHIKA, 1946
WA NO. 1698 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.09.2024 ARISING FROM WP(C)
NO.33869 OF 2024
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 2 AND 4:
1 DIRECTOR
INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT,
PRAJOE TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
2 PRINCIPAL
MODEL ENGINEERING COLLEGE, THRIKKAKARA,
THRIKKAKARA, P.O., ERNAKULAM, KOCHI.,
PIN - 682021
BY ADVS.
DEEPU THANKAN
UMMUL FIDA
LAKSHMI SREEDHAR
LEKSHMI P. NAIR
VINEETHA BOSE
CINDIA S.
GAYATHRI G.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND 1ST AND 3RD RESPONDENT:
1 DR. VINU THOMAS
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. CHACKO N. THOMAS, WORKING AS DEAN (ACADEMIC),
APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY,
SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT, BUILDING,
2
W.A.No.1698 of 2024
2024:KER:79701
CET CAMPS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695016
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.,
PIN - 695001
3 V A ARUNKUMAR
DIRECTOR IN CHARGE, INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT, PRAJOE TOWERS,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695014
SMT.VINEETHA B, SR. GP
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
W.A.No.1698 of 2024
2024:KER:79701
"C.R"
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The appellants are respondents 2 and 4 in W.P.(C)
No.33869 of 2024, which was one filed by the 1st respondent
herein-writ petitioner, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of
certiorari to quash Ext.P15 communication dated 20.09.2024,
issued by the 2nd respondent-Director, Institute of Human
Resources Development, whereby the request made by the
petitioner in Ext.P14 representation dated 05.08.2024 for issuing
a copy of the Audit Reports stands rejected, for the reasons
stated therein. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of
mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to issue the relevant
pages of the audit report (other than Ext.P12) relied upon while
issuing Ext.P13 memo of charges and statement of allegations,
to the petitioner; or in the alternative, to permit any Assistant
Professor, Associate Professor, Professor or an employee under
the 2nd respondent to take extracts of those audit objections, to
offer the explanation of the petitioner to Ext.P13 memo of
charges and statement of allegations, thereby enabling the
2024:KER:79701
petitioner to pursue his duties and responsibilities as Dean
(Academic) and Dean (Research) of APJ Abdul Kalam
Technological University.
2. On 27.09.2024, when W.P.(C)No.33869 of 2024 came
up for admission, the learned Single Judge disposed of the same
by the impugned Judgment. Paragraphs 4 and 5 and also the last
paragraph of that judgment read thus;
"4. The only question that arises for consideration is
whether the relevant portion of the internal audit report
referred to in Ext.P12 and P13 is to be given to the
petitioner. Of course the specific request made by the
petitioner was declined as per Ext.P 14 issued by the 2nd
respondent, by citing the rules in KCS (CC and A), Rules,
1960. It was observed that, the petitioner does not have an
absolute right to seek for the copies of the same. Here in
this case, it is evident from the records that, the enquiry
was initiated mainly on the basis of the findings in the
internal audit enquiry which is not a disputed fact. Certain
portions of the same is already extracted in Ext.P12 and the
apprehension of the petitioner is that, during the course of
enquiry, the portions which were not referred to in Ext.P12
may also to be relied on by the authorities concerned.
5. As far as the furnishing the said copies to the petitioner is
concerned, it can only be treated as a requirement to
comply with the principles of natural justice. Since it is
evident that the 2nd respondent is proposing to rely upon
2024:KER:79701
the audit report, it is only proper that the petitioner be
given the copies of the relevant pages, where there is
reference of the petitioner, so as to enable him to prepare a
proper reply in response to the findings/observations
against the petitioner, in the said report. If such an
opportunity is not granted to the petitioner, the proceedings
cannot be treated as the one in compliance with the
principles of natural justice. In such circumstances, I am of
the view that, the Ext.P15 has to be interfered with.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, quashing
Ext.P15 with a direction to the 2nd respondent to make
available the copy of the relevant pages where the reference
of the petitioner is made, to the petitioner, within a period of
one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment and the petitioner shall submit a reply to the
Ext.P13 memo of charges and statement of allegations,
within a further period of ten days from the date of receipt
of copy of the said copies. Till such time the further
proceedings pursuant to Ext.P13 shall be kept in abeyance."
3. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the learned
Single Judge, the appellants-respondents 2 and 4 are before this
Court in this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5
of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.
4. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the
appellants-respondents 2 and 4, the learned counsel for the 1st
respondent-writ petitioner and the learned Senior Government
2024:KER:79701
Pleader for the 2nd respondent-State.
5. The issue that requires consideration in this writ
appeal is as to whether the direction contained in the impugned
Judgment of the learned Single Judge, whereby the 2nd appellant
herein has been directed to make available to the 1st respondent-
writ petitioner copy of the relevant pages of the Audit Reports,
as sought for in Ext.P14 request dated 05.08.2024, in order to
submit reply to Ext.P13 memo of charges and statement of
allegations, warrants interference in this writ appeal.
6. During the course of arguments, the learned Standing
Counsel for the appellants-respondents 2 and 4 and also the
learned counsel for the 1st respondent-writ petitioner would place
reliance on the provisions contained in Rule 15 of the Kerala Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960.
7. The submission made by the learned Standing
Counsel for the appellants is that, in view of the provisions
contained in sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of the aforesaid Rules, a
Government Servant who is facing disciplinary proceedings is
entitled only to peruse or take extract from the records
pertaining to the case, for the purpose of preparing his written
2024:KER:79701
statement, and in such circumstance, the learned Single Judge
went wrong in issuing the direction contained in the impugned
judgment.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1 st
respondent-writ petitioner would contend that in the absence of
any reason stated in Ext.P15 for refusing to give copy of the
Audit Reports, as sought for in Ext.P14 request, the direction
contained in the judgment of the learned Single Judge warrants
no interference in this writ appeal.
9. Clause (a) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of the Kerala
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960,
reads thus;
"(2)(a) Whenever a complaint is received, or on
consideration of the report of an investigation, or for other
reasons, the disciplinary authority of the appointing
authority or any other authority empowered by Government
in this behalf is satisfied that there is a prima facie case for
taking action against a Government servant, such authority
shall frame definite charge or charges which shall be
communicated to the Government servant together with a
statement of the allegations on which each charge is based
and of any other circumstances which it is proposed to take
into consideration in passing orders on the case. The
2024:KER:79701
accused Government servants shall be required to submit
within a reasonable time to be specified in that behalf a
written statement of his defence and also to state whether
he desires to be heard in person. The Government servant
may on his request be permitted to peruse or take extracts
from the records pertaining to the case for the purpose of
preparing his written statement; provided that the
disciplinary or other authority referred to above may, for
reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse him such access, if
in its opinion such records are not strictly relevant to the
case or it is not desirable in the public interest to allow such
access. After the written statement is received or if no such
statement is received within the time allowed, the authority
referred to above may, if it is satisfied that a formal enquiry
should be held into the conduct of the Government servant,
forward the record of the case to the authority or officer
referred to in clause (b) and order that a formal enquiry
may be conducted." (underlines supplied)
10. A reading of the provisions contained in clause (a) of
sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules would make it explicitly clear that a
Government Servant, who is required to submit a written
statement of defence to the charges levelled against him, may
on his request be permitted by the disciplinary authority, to
peruse or take extract from the records pertaining to the case for
the purpose of preparing his written statement. The said
2024:KER:79701
provision also empowers the disciplinary authority, for reasons to
be recorded in writing, refuse the Government Servant such
access, if in its opinion such records are not strictly relevant to
the case or it is not desirable in the public interest to allow such
access. The recording of reasons in writing by the disciplinary
authority is required only in a case where the Government
Servant is refused permission to peruse or take extracts from the
records pertaining to the case, on the ground that such records
are not strictly relevant to the case or it is not desirable in the
public interest to allow such access. When the entitlement of the
1st respondent-writ petitioner, as per the provisions contained in
clause (a) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of the Rules, is only to
peruse or take extracts from the records pertaining to the case
for the purposes of preparing his written statement, he cannot
seek a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd appellant to issue
copy of the Audit Reports, since no mandamus can be issued
directing the 2nd appellant to do something which is contrary to
the statutory provisions contained in Rule 15 of the said Rules.
Therefore, the learned Single Judge went wrong in issuing the
impugned direction in the judgment dated 27.09.2024 in
2024:KER:79701
W.P.(C)No.33869 of 2024, by directing the 2nd appellant to make
available to the 1st respondent-writ petitioner copy of the
relevant pages of the audit reports.
In the result, this writ appeal is allowed by setting aside the
judgment dated 27.09.2024 of the learned Single Judge in
W.P.(C)No.33869 of 2024, thereby dismissing that writ petition,
as the 1st respondent-writ petitioner is not legally entitled for the
relief sought for in the writ petition. However, the 1st respondent-
writ petitioner is granted two weeks' time from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this judgment to submit written
submission to Ext.P13 memo of charges and statement of
allegations.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
SMF
