[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Dr. Shamnad. J vs The Adminsitrator on 6 February, 2026
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
2026:KER:10230
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 17TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 39589 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
DR. SHAMNAD. J.
AGED 38 YEARS
AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. DAVOOD, BLOCK NO. 11,
KALLUVETTAMKUZHI, KULATHUPUZHA P.O.,
KOLLAM DISTRICT,
(WORKING AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN BOTANY,
IQUBAL COLLEGE, PERINGAMALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM), PIN - 691310
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR
SMT.ELIZEBATH GEORGE
SMT.SATHY C.B.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE ADMINSITRATOR
IQBAL COLLEGE TRUST, DAIVAPPURA P.O.,
PERINGAMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695563
2 UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR,
UNIVERSITY CAMPUS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE VICE CHANCELLOR
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2026:KER:10230
W.P.(C) No.39589/2024
:2:
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.SREEKUMAR
SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 08.01.2026, THE COURT ON 06.02.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:10230
W.P.(C) No.39589/2024
:3:
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.39589 of 2024
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 6th day of February, 2026
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~
The petitioner, who is working as Assistant
Professor in Botany in the Iqbal College, Peringamala, seeks to
declare that the 1st respondent-Administrator is not entitled to
continue any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner
after 28.07.2024 in view of Ext.P4 and hence Exts.P6 and P10
are illegal.
2. The petitioner states that he was appointed in
the College on 18.06.2020. The petitioner detected
malpractices in examination by three students. When enquiry
was started against the students, certain staff members turned
against the petitioner. The petitioner was suspended as per
2026:KER:10230
Ext.P1 order dated 20.02.2024. A Teacher cannot be kept
under suspension by the educational agency except when
disciplinary proceedings are initiated in view of Section 60(2) of
the Kerala University Act. No disciplinary proceedings were
initiated against the petitioner.
3. A charge memo was issued only on
28.02.2024 after the suspension. Hence, Ext.P1 is illegal.
Enquiry proceedings are to be completed within three months
as per Section 60(4). The proceedings were not concluded
within three months and hence the petitioner submitted Ext.P3
representation dated 20.05.2024 requesting to revoke the
suspension. The 1st respondent, on the other hand, submitted
a request before the 3rd respondent seeking extension of period
for completing the enquiry. The 3rd respondent issued Ext.P4
order dated 29.06.2024 directing to complete the whole
procedure within one month.
4. The petitioner states that the proceedings
were not completed within one month and therefore further
2026:KER:10230
proceedings are illegal and without any jurisdiction. The 1st
respondent is debarred from proceeding ahead with the
disciplinary action. The petitioner was reinstated in service as
per order dated 03.08.2024 as per Ext.P5.
5. On receipt of enquiry report, the 1st
respondent issued a show-cause notice proposing to withhold
two increments with cumulative effect as per Ext.P6 proceeding
dated 23.09.2024. The petitioner submitted Ext.P7 reply. The
petitioner states that the term of members of the Trust Board
and Executive Committee of the College has already expired.
The 1st respondent was appointed as Administrator. The
Administrator is appointed as a stopgap arrangement. He
cannot go ahead with the disciplinary proceedings. The
petitioner therefore seeks to set aside Exts.P6 and P10.
6. The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit.
The 1st respondent stated that a Scheme suit in respect of the
College Trust was decreed on 13.04.2007 and was modified on
21.08.2012 and a Scheme was finalised. The Trust is
2026:KER:10230
functioning as per the Scheme settled by the Court. The term
of the then existing Board expired on 21.05.2022. hence, the
District Court appointed the 1st respondent as Administrator.
The competency of the 1st respondent to continue as
Administrator was the subject matter in W.P.(C) No.2278/2024.
This Court, by judgment dated 23.09.2024, upheld the
competency of the 1st respondent. There is no rule mandating
that suspension can be made only after issue of charge memo.
The non-completion of enquiry within the stipulated time will not
result in discharge or acquitted of the accused. The writ
petition is without any merit and it is liable to be dismissed,
contended the 1st respondent.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the
learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3.
8. The petitioner is working as Assistant
Professor in the Iqubal College Trust, presently managed by
the 1st respondent-Administrator. The petitioner was
2026:KER:10230
suspended on 20.02.2024 as per Ext.P1 order. Ext.P2 memo
of charges was issued on the petitioner on 27.02.2024. As per
Section 60(4) of the Kerala University Act, disciplinary
proceedings shold be completed within three months or within
such period allowed by the Vice Chancellor.
9. The Vice Chancellor extended the period for
completing the enquiry for one month from 29.06.2024. The 1st
respondent could not complete the enquiry within the said
period. The suspension was hence revoked as per Ext.P5
order dated 03.08.2024. Thereafter, the enquiry was
concluded passing Ext.P10 order dated 28.10.2024 imposing
on the petitioner the penalty of withholding of two increments
with cumulative effect. Exts.P6 and P10 orders are under
challenge.
10. The prime contention of the petitioner is that
the 1st respondent being an Administrator has no authority to
proceed with a disciplinary enquiry and conclude the same,
since he is not the employer and he is holding the position of
2026:KER:10230
Administrator on adhoc basis. The suspension imposed on the
petitioner before issuing charge sheet is illegal as per Section
60(2) of the Kerala University Act. As the disciplinary
proceeding could not be completed and as final orders could
not be passed even within the extended time permitted by the
Vice Chancellor, the punishment imposed is also illegal,
contends the petitioner.
11. As regards the competency of the 1st
respondent to act as a Disciplinary Authority, it has to be noted
that the 1st respondent is not an Administrator appointed by the
Trust or by the Government as per any executive order. The 1st
respondent has been appointed as Administrator by the order
of a competent civil court. When the court appoints an
Administrator in the place of a Board of Trust / Managing
Committee, such Administrator will be having all powers
exercised by the Trust / Managing Committee, as long as the
court which appointed the Administrator does not curtail his
powers in any manner. No such court imposed restriction
2026:KER:10230
which is brought to the notice of this Court. The argument
based on competency of the 1st respondent is therefore
rejected.
12. The further contention of the petitioner is that
a suspension could not have been made before issuance of
charge memo in view of Section 60(2) of the Kerala University
Act. In this case, the suspension was ordered on 20.02.2024
and charge sheet was issued within one week, on 27.02.2024.
Therefore, the petitioner cannot challenge the disciplinary
proceedings holding that suspension order was passed before
issuing charge memo. In this case, it is evident that
suspension order was passed in contemplation of disciplinary
proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings commenced by
issuance of charge sheet within one week. The disciplinary
proceedings therefore cannot be said to be vitiated on that
ground.
13. The further contention of the petitioner is that
since the disciplinary proceeding was not completed within the
2026:KER:10230
stipulated time, the punishment imposed is illegal. The
disciplinary proceedings commenced on 27.02.2024 by
issuance of a charge memo. The disciplinary proceedings
should have been completed within three months or within such
further period as allowed by the Vice Chancellor. The Vice
Chancellor extended the period for completion of disciplinary
proceedings till 28.07.2024. The enquiry officer submitted his
enquiry report on 12.09.2024 and the punishment was imposed
on 28.10.2024. It is to be noted that in the meanwhile the
suspension imposed on the petitioner was revoked and he was
reinstated in service as per order dated 03.08.2024. Delay in
completion of the disciplinary proceedings by itself will not
absolve the petitioner from punishment if the misconducts are
proved.
In the afore facts of the case, I do not find any
merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is hence dismissed.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/04.02.2026
2026:KER:10230
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 39589 OF 2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 ORDER NO. KT-K-01/02-2024 DATED
20.2.2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF MEMO OF CHARGES FRAMED
AGAINST PETITIONER ISSUED BY 1ST
RESPONDENT NO. ICT-IC-01/02-2024 DATED
27.2.2024
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED
20.5.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY
THIRD RESPONDENT FILE NO.
AC.F.111/49038/2023/UOK. DATED
29.6.2024
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY
FIRST RESPONDENT NO. ICT-IC-01/2024.
DATED 3.8.2024
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY
THE FIRST RESPONDENT NO. ICT-IC-01/02-
2024. DATED 23.9.2024
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER TO FIRST RESPONDENT
DATED 9.10.2024
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO.
87/2022 IN O.S. NO. 5/1990 OF THE
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-I,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 13.6.2022
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
THIRD RESPONDENT. DATED 16.8.2024
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF FIRST
RESPONDENT NO. ICT-IC-01/02-2024 DATED
28.10.2024
2026:KER:10230
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
Ext.R1(2) true copy of the Enquiry Report dated
12..09..2024
Ext.R1(1) true copy of the Delivery Manifest of
Peringamala SO-695563 dated
04..07..2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 20.6.2022 IN
I.A. NO. 108/2022 IN O.S. NO. 5/1990 OF
THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-
I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
