[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Minipriya R vs State Of Kerala on 16 December, 2025
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
2025:KER:96550
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 25535 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
MINIPRIYA R
AGED 45 YEARS
D/O. RADHAKRISHNAN R. ,FORMER ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
(HINDI), (SINCE TERMINATED FROM SERVICE),
S.H.COLLEGE, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT, FLAT NO.1/I/12,
SOUTH STAR APARTMENT NEAR KSRTC,
GANDHINAGAR, KOCHI, PIN - 682020
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.SANJAY
SHRI.SANIL KUMAR G.
SMTI.AFNAN DAWOOD
SHRI.SATHEESH KUMAR K.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HIGHER
EDUCATION,GOVT SECRETARIAT, STATUE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DY.DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
ZONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM,
REPRESENTING THE COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
DEPARTMENTERNAKULAM, HOSPITAL ROAD,
KOCHI, PIN - 682011
2025:KER:96550
W.P.(C) No.25535/2025
:2:
3 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686560
4 VICE-CHANCELLOR
REPRESENTING THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY
PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686560
5 THE MANAGER
SACRED HEART COLLEGE (AUTONOMOUS),
THEVARA, KOCHI-, PIN - 682013
6 THE PRINCIPAL
SACRED HEART COLLEGE (AUTONOMOUS),
THEVARA, KOCHI, PIN - 682013
7 THE NODAL OFFICER
1ST FLOOR, DPC BUILDING, KERALA UNIVERSITY
SENATE HALL CAMPUS, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695034
8 UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN (UGC),
BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110002
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ABEL TOM BENNY
SHRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC
SRI.RAJESH. K.RAJU
SRI.D.PREM KAMATH
SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL)
SHRI.AARON ZACHARIAS BENNY
SHRI.ALAN J YOGYAVEEDU
SHRI.CLINT JUDE LEWIS
SHRI. MATHEW ANGELO DAVIS
SMT.TESSA ROSE
SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL
SRI. SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC
SMT. PRINCY XAVIER, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.12.2025, THE COURT ON 16.12.2025
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:96550
W.P.(C) No.25535/2025
:3:
CR
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.25535 of 2025
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 16th day of December, 2025
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~
The petitioner, who has been working in the
Sacred Heart College (Autonomous), Thevara, Kochi and
who has about 12 years of service, is challenging Ext.P3
order of suspension and Ext.P12 order of termination issued
by the 5th respondent-Manager.
2. The petitioner states that she was issued
with Ext.P3 notice of suspension dated 03.05.2024 in
contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner
would urge that enquiry was proceeded with without even
2025:KER:96550
issuing a formal charge sheet. The respondents refused to
sanction and pay subsistence allowance. The charges
levelled against the petitioner in the suspension order were
vague and was not accompanied by the statement of the
allegation on which each charge is framed.
3. The petitioner was not provided with copies
of relevant documents. The petitioner was not permitted to
effectively cross-examine the witnesses. A student, who filed
complaint against the petitioner was included in the College
level grievance redressal committee, at whose instance the
suspension order was issued. Exts.P3 and P12 are therefore
vitiated.
4. After the enquiry, the petitioner was imposed
with the punishment of "termination", which is not a
punishment permissible under the University statutes. The
punishment imposed on the petitioner is grossly
disproportionate to the gravity of the offence alleged. Exts.P3
and 12 orders are therefore liable to be set aside.
2025:KER:96550
5. The counsel for the petitioner urged that
though there is a statutory alternate remedy of filing appeal
before the Tribunal under Section 63 of the Mahatma Gandhi
University Act, the writ petition is maintainable since there are
gross statutory violations. The counsel relied on a judgment
of this Court in V.M. Karunakaran v. Zamorin Raja of
Calicut and others [2019 (4) KLT 244] and argued that to
ask the employee to defend himself against a general
allegation of misconduct without specification of particulars
denies to him and effective right of defending himself. The
entire disciplinary proceedings are therefore vitiated.
6. The 3rd respondent-University filed a
statement. The 3rd respondent stated that the order of
suspension served on the petitioner was communicated to the
University. The suspension was extended until 10.01.2025
as the enquiry proceedings were going on. The Manager's
communication regarding the termination of the petitioner was
reported to the Syndicate meeting held on 30.06.2025. As
2025:KER:96550
per Section 63(6) Chapter VIII of the Mahatma Gandhi
University Act, 1985, the petitioner is entitled to file an appeal
before the appellate Tribunal.
7. Respondents 5 and 6 resisted the writ
petition. Respondents 5 and 6 submitted that several
complaints were received against the petitioner from students
and fellow Teachers. A show-cause notice was issued to the
petitioner to which the petitioner submitted reply. Thereafter,
Ext.P3 charge sheet was issued elucidating the charges
against the petitioner.
8. The petitioner was given sufficient time to
file reply to the charge sheet. Copies of witness list,
document list and documents were supplied to the petitioner.
Witnesses examined by the management were cross-
examined. The petitioner did not examine any witness on her
side. Enquiry proceedings were concluded and argument
notes were submitted. The domestic enquiry was conducted
strictly following the principles of natural justice and the
2025:KER:96550
petitioner participated in the enquiry. The writ petition is
therefore without any merit.
9. As regards issuance of charge sheet,
respondents 5 and 6 submitted that though Ext.P3 has been
described as notice of suspension, the charges against the
petitioner were clearly stated in Ext.P3. The petitioner
repeatedly failed to cross-examine the management
witnesses. The petitioner has not categorically denied the
charges levelled against her. The writ petition is devoid of
any merit and it is liable to be dismissed.
10. The 8th respondent-UGC also filed counter
affidavit. The 8th respondent stated that disciplinary
proceedings against the petitioner does not come under the
purview of the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications
for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in
Universities and Colleges and Other Measures for the
Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education. The issue
raised in the writ petition is an internal matter of administrative
2025:KER:96550
governance.
11. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing
respondents 1 and 2, the learned Standing Counsel
appearing for respondents 3 and 4, the learned counsel
appearing for respondents 5 and 6 and the learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the 8th respondent.
12. Ext.P3 is the suspension order issued on the
petitioner. Though described as notice of suspension, Ext.P3
contains charges levelled against the petitioner. The charges
levelled against the petitioner are as follows:
Regarding the allegations alleged in the charge
sheet given by the Management of Sacred Heart
College, Thevara dated 03.05.2024 to the accused
teacher Minipriya R :
That you without any reason or provocation from the
side of students, during the class hours, in the
presence of other students shouted at them in the
most offensive, repulsive and rude manner,
addressing them as "Thendi pillar", "Mandabudhi" ,
"Kazhuthakal", "Pottanmar" , "Mandippulla Pillaru",
"Kallan", "Kalli" etc.
That you in the most disrespectful, derogatory and
disparaging manner, described the teachers as
2025:KER:96550
"Mandan", "Pongan", "Pottan" etc.It is further
alleged that as a teacher your unruly behaviour and
demeanour, and the most inappropriate, improper
and abusive language, used regularly and
repeatedly by you against the students, cause
anxiety, worry, concern and stress to the students
attending your class, and they are unable to attend
the class in a calm, composed and peaceful
atmosphere.
That ignoring the request of Professor Shyamlal,
Head of the Faculty of Additional Languages, who
had requested you to avoid combined classes as it
would cause inconvenience to the students and
create a situation where the teachers would find it
difficult to verify the attendance of the students
going for other extra - curricular activities; and
requested your cooperation and support, you
insisted on combined classes of the students from
different batches in total disregard of the request of
Shri Shyam Lal and without paying any attention to
the same, unilaterally and in a totally arbitrary,
impolite and ungracious manner, continued to
conduct classes combining students from different
batches.
That when this was brought to the notice of the
Principal by Shri. Shyamlal, the management, by
notice instructed you not to conduct classes by
combining students from different batches as this
would cause total uncertainty and inconvenience to
other teachers and students, and accordingly
instructed you to conduct classes for each batch
separately, but you totally discarded the instructions
given by the management and continued to conduct
the classes combining the students from different
batches.
13. The Management examined MWs 1 to 8 and
marked documents Exts.M1 to M21. The petitioner examined
2025:KER:96550
herself as WW1 and marked Exts.W1 to W10(b) documents.
The enquiry officer marked Exts.E1 to E11 documents.
Seven documents were produced by the Management as per
the request of the petitioner. After conducting a confronted
enquiry, the enquiry officer gave Ext.P9 enquiry report. In
Ext.P9 enquiry report, the enquiry officer concluded that the
allegations against the petitioner are proved. It is clear from
Ext.P10 that the petitioner was served with a copy of the
enquiry report and was required to show-cause. It was after
considering the reply submitted by the petitioner that Ext.P12
order was passed terminating the petitioner from service.
14. The petitioner has a specific case that no
charge sheet was issued on the petitioner and the allegations
made in Ext.P3 suspension order are vague. If clear charges
are made in a suspension order, the management is not
bound to issue another charge sheet separately. The
question is whether Ext.P3 can be treated as a legally valid
charge sheet.
2025:KER:96550
15. The charges against the petitioner as seen
in Ext.P3 and as quoted in paragraph 11 above, would
indicate that though the charges are descriptive, material
particulars necessary in a charge sheet are conspicuously
absent. The charges do not indicate the date or time of the
incidents forming cause of the charge sheet. It is alleged that
the petitioner has shouted to students and has described the
Teachers in a most disrespectful, derogatory and disparaging
manner. The charges do not indicate as to at which students
the petitioner has shouted. The charges do not indicate in
respect of which Teachers, the petitioner has made remarks
disrespectfully and derogatorily.
16. Another charge states that the petitioner
disregarded the request of Professor Shyamlal to avoid
combined classes and the petitioner unilaterally and arbitrarily
continued to conduct classes combining students from
different batches. It is alleged that the petitioner discarded
the instructions given by the management in this regard. The
2025:KER:96550
charge sheet does not indicate on which dates the petitioner
has taken combined classes against the directions and on
which dates or the manner in which the petitioner was
required not to conduct classes by combining students from
different classes.
17. If an employee is not told clearly and
definitely what the allegations are on which the charges are
founded, the employee cannot possibly discover all the facts
and circumstances that may be in the contemplation of the
authorities to be established against him. It was so held by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Surath Chandra Chakrabarti v.
State of West Bengal [(1970) 3 SCC 548].
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sawai Singh v.
State of Rajasthan [(1986) 3 SCC 454] held that the
deficiencies which vitiates a vague charge sheet cannot be
allowed to be supplemented by recourse to evidence at a
later stage.
2025:KER:96550
19. The counsel representing the College
submitted that the petitioner had participated in the domestic
enquiry and was given full opportunity. The petitioner could
have gathered all information regarding the facts forming the
basis of the charge sheet during the enquiry proceedings. Th
petitioner did not take any steps in that regard.
20. The defence of the respondents cannot be
accepted. An employee faced with a vague charge that
he/she is guilty of a described type of misconduct would be
extremely hard put to defend himself/herself against the
charge unless he/she is informed such particulars as would
enable him/her to give an effective reply and demonstrate that
the charges are false or otherwise not acceptable.
21. A Division Bench of this Court in the
judgment in V.M. Karunakaran (supra) has also held that the
requirement that the charge sheet must be precise and must
contain a statement of imputations constituting the foundation
of misconduct, is a basic principle of natural justice. This is a
2025:KER:96550
fundamental stipulation, the non-compliance of which would
vitiate the enquiry. For the afore reasons, I find that the
domestic enquiry conducted against the petitioner is vitiated.
22. I find that the punishment of termination
imposed on the petitioner is unsustainable for other reasons
also. Statute 73 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes,
1997 prescribes the penalties which may be imposed on
Teachers of Private Colleges. Statute 73 reads as follows:
73. Penalties: The following Penalties may, for
good and sufficient reasons and hereinafter
provided, be imposed on teachers of private
colleges, namely:-
(i) Censure;
(ii) Withholding of increments or promotion;
(iii) (a) Recovery from pay of the whole or
part of any pecuniary loss caused to the private
college by his negligence or breach of orders;
(b) Recovery from pay to the extent
necessary of the monetary value equivalent to the
amount of increments ordered to be withheld where
such an order cannot be given effect to.
Explanation - In cases of stoppage of increments
with cumulative effect, the monetary value
equivalent to three times the amount of increments
ordered to be withheld may be recovered.
2025:KER:96550
(iv) Reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list or
to a lower grade or post or time scale or to a lower
stage in a time-scale;
(v) Compulsory retirement;
(vi) Removal from the private college which shall
not be a disqualification for future employment;
(vii) Dismissal from the private college which shall
be a disqualification for future employment in any of
the institutions maintained by or affiliated to the
University.
"Termination" is not one of the penalties that can be imposed
by the Manager on Teachers of Private Colleges. If the
respondents intended to retrench the petitioner from service,
the management could have imposed the punishment of
"removal from the Private College, which statutorily shall not
be a disqualification for future employment". If the
management wanted to impose a graver punishment, the
management could have imposed "dismissal from the Private
College", which shall be a disqualification for future
employment in any of the institutions maintained by or
affiliated to the University. The punishment of "termination" is
not contemplated by the Statutes and its consequences are
2025:KER:96550
not defined. The punishment imposed on the petitioner is
illegal and unsustainable for the said reason.
23. The counsel for respondents 5 and 6 would
vehemently argue that since the petitioner has an alternate
remedy against Exts.P3 and P12 under Section 63 of the
Mahatma Gandhi University Act, the writ petition should not
be entertained. As the very charge sheet issued to the
petitioner is vitiated and the punishment imposed on the
petitioner is legally unsustainable, I do not find it a fit case to
drive the petitioner to the Tribunal for availing alternate
remedy.
The writ petition is therefore allowed.
Exts.P3 notice of suspension and P12 order of termination
are set aside. Respondents 5 and 6 are directed to reinstate
the petitioner in service with consequential benefits.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/04.12.2025
2025:KER:96550
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 25535 OF 2025
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P.1 TRUE COPY OF THE PH.D. CERTIFICATE NO.
EA/2667/SSUS/2011 DATED 30-08-2013
EXHIBIT P.2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.
TS/23/2012 DATED 04.07.2012 ISSUED TO
THE PETITIONER BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
S.H. COLLEGE, THEVARA
EXHIBIT P. 2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO: 980/B
II/ACAD/2014 DATED 04.02.2014 OF
APPROVAL DATED 04.02.2014 ISSUED BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY
EXHIBIT P.3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF SUSPENSION
DATED 03.05.2024 ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER BY THE MANGER
EXHIBIT P.4 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
DATED 25.03.2024 ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER BY THE MANGER
EXHIBIT P.5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
27.03.2024 REQUESTING COPIES OF THE
COMPLAINTS
EXHIBIT P.6 TRUE COPY OF THE GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL
POLICY OF THE COLLEGE DATE NIL
EXHIBIT P.6 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE
GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL COMMITTEE MEETING
IN WHICH VIVEK KRISHNA THE COMPLAINANT
ATTENDED, HELD ON 13.03.2024
RECOMMENDING THE SUSPENSION OF THE
PETITIONER FROM SERVICE
EXHIBIT P.7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
25.11.2024 SENT BY THE COLLEGE TO THE
REGISTRAR OF THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY
EXHIBIT P.8 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT REGISTRAR DATED
13.12.2024 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION
EXHIBIT P.8(a) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
27.03.2025 SENT BY THE MG UNIVERSITY
TO THE SH COLLEGE EXTENDING THE TIME
FOR COMPLETION OF THE PROCEEDINGS WITH
ENGLISH TRANSLATION
2025:KER:96550
EXHIBIT P.9 RUE COPY OF THE INQUIRY REPORT DATED
NIL SUBMITTED BY THE INQUIRY OFFICER
WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION
EXHIBIT P.10 TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
DATED 17.03.2025
EXHIBIT P.11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED
29.03.2025 TO THE 2ND SHOW CAUSE
EXHIBIT P.12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
28.04.2025 TERMINATING THE PETITIONER
FROM SERVICE
