Appeal against Single Judge order reinstating a suspended Assistant Professor. Held: Suspension became invalid after failure to hold review within 90 days under CCS (CCA) Rules, and Single Judge was correct to mandate reinstatement.
Writ appeal dismissed; previous order reinstating petitioner allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN &
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/1ST ASWINA, 1937
WA.No. 826 of 2015
---------------------------
JUDGMENT DATED 04-03-2015 IN WP(C) 10568/2014
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN WPC:
1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT, NIT CAMPUS P.O., CALICUT, PIN-673 601, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
2. THE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT, NIT CAMPUS P.O., CALICUT, PIN-673 601.
BY ADVS.SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.) SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER IN WPC:
SUBHASH K.M., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (UNDER SUSPENSION), DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT, PIN-673 601, RESIDING AT MAVILA VEEDU, ROHINI, SINGLE STREET LANE, BALARAMAPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 501.
BY ADVS. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-09-2015 THE COURT ON 23-09-2015, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
msv/
ASHOK BHUSHAN, CJ &
**A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.A.No.826 of 2015
Dated this the 23rd day of September 2015
J U D G M E N T
Shaffique, J
This appeal is filed by the respondents in W.P.C.No.10568 of 2014 challenging the judgment dated 04/03/2015 by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed that the petitioner shall be reinstated within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The respondent herein, who is hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, filed the writ petition challenging Exts.P1 and P6 and sought for a declaration that his suspension was invalid by virtue of Rule 10(7) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and for other consequential reliefs for reinstating him in service after cancelling his suspension.
W.A.No.826/2015
2
National Institute of Technology, Calicut was suspended from service w.e.f 29/12/2012 as per order dated 11/1/2013. Suspension happened to be made based on Crime No.36/2011 registered against him. After conducting an investigation, petitioner was arrested on 29/12/2012. Final report was submitted on 29/05/2013 for offences under Sections 376, 302 and 201 I.P.C read with Section 117(d) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011. He was in judicial custody from 30/12/2012 till 15/03/2013 and thereafter released on bail. Bail was granted on certain conditions. According to the petitioner, since he was suspended with effect from 29/12/2012, it was mandatory on the part of the committee under Rule 10(6) of the CCS (CCA) Rules to have reviewed his suspension before 28/03/2013. Petitioner submitted several representations for which there was no reply . It is stated that subsequently a review committee was constituted on 17/10/2013 which met on 07/11/2013 and it was recommended that the petitioner's suspension may be revoked w.e.f 01/02/2014. But, still no action was taken in the matter. Thereafter the Board of Governors, by Ext.P6 order, observed that the continuance of his suspension was necessitated in public
W.A.No.826/2015
3
interest and therefore further review of the suspension can be made only on the basis of the final decision of this Court. Petitioner submitted that he was arrayed as an accused on account of an unfortunate incident that occurred on 24/04/2011 and he was only a scapegoat of the media hype that was given to the incident. It was stated that even otherwise, the respondents were bound to comply with the review committee report dated 07/11/2013 and there was no reason why the suspension order had been continued beyond the period specified by them. The learned Single Judge observed that when the review committee had already recommended re-induction of the petitioner from 01/02/2014, there was no other reason for taking a different view. However it was observed that it was open for the Institute to allocate any other assignment to the petitioner other than teaching.
W.A.No.826/2015
4
review committee recommendations and decided not to re-induct the petitioner till the case charged against him is over and he is acquitted. The said decision has been taken in public interest and in the interest of the institution and the students. It is argued that the petitioner, being a Lecturer, is alleged of committing rape as well as murder, and the victim herself was an Adhoc Lecturer of the college, who later joined as Full Time Research Scholar in the Department of Electronics and Communication. The student community, therefore, will not tolerate the petitioner to take classes, without him being completely exonerated from the charges levelled. It is also pointed out that the trial is to start soon and therefore his suspension can be reviewed after the trial is over.
W.A.No.826/2015
5
submitted that when the six months period was over, the review Committee considered the case of the petitioner and though they have recommended the reinstatement of the petitioner w.e.f 01/02/2014, the Board of Governors took a contrary view and awaited the final verdict from the High Court. Learned counsel submitted that, in fact, they were awaiting the decision in the trial rather than the judgment of the High Court in the above writ petition.
W.A.No.826/2015
6
gets automatically vacate. Paragraph 10 is relevant which reads as under:
“10. Having carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and having also considered the relevant dates relating to suspension of the respondent and when the petitioners' case came up for review on 20-10-2004, we are inclined to agree with the views expressed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, as confirmed by the High Court, that having regard to the amended provisions of sub-rules (6) and (7) of Rule 10, the review for modification or revocation of the order of suspension was required to be done before the expiry of 90 days from the date of order of suspension and as categorically provided under sub-rule (7), the order of suspension made or deemed would not be valid after a period of 90 days unless it was extended after review for a further period of 90 days.”
W.A.No.826/2015
7
committee ought to have considered extension or revocation of his suspension within a period of 90 days. Apparently the same has not been done. Rule also provides for subsequent reviews before the expiry of the extended period of suspension. It is also provided that extension of suspension shall not be for a period exceeding 180 days at a time. Rules 10(6) and (7) are extracted in para 2 of the judgment in Dipak Mali (supra) which is extracted hereunder:
“2. Under Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 amended by Notification dated 23/12/2003, sub-rules (6) and (7) were inserted. As the same are relevant to the facts of this case, the same are extracted hereinbelow:
“10. (6) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall be reviewed by the authority competent to modify or revoke the suspension, on the recommendation of the Review Committee constituted for the purposes and pass orders either extending or revoking the suspension. Subsequent reviews shall be made before the expiry of the extended period of suspension. Extension of suspension shall not be for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty days at a time.
W.A.No.826/2015
8
(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in subrule (5), an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rules (1) or (2) of this rule shall not be valid after a period of ninety days unless it is extended after review, for a further period before the expiry of ninety days.”
W.A.No.826/2015
9
factual circumstances involved in the matter. The short question was whether there was compliance of Rule 10(6) of the Rules. First of all, review committee was not constituted within the time as prescribed under the rules. Secondly, though belatedly the review committee considered the matter, the decision of the committee has not been implemented. The decision of the review committee was to re-induct the petitioner w.e.f 01/02/2014 and thereafter also, the management decided not to re-induct the petitioner. But, after the decision of the review committee, no further review had been held till date. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that the judgment in Dipak Mali (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the case. We do not think that the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants will be applicable to the facts involved in the case. Under such circumstances, the learned Single Judge was justified in directing the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner.
W.A.No.826/2015
10
embarrassment to the staff and students. Under such circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge and accordingly the writ appeal is dismissed.
(sd/-)
(ASHOK BHUSHAN, CHIEF JUSTICE)
(sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)
jsr
W.A.No.826/2015 11
W.A.No.826/2015 12
3 issues framed by the court
Whether suspension of a lecturer validly continues after failure to complete mandated review under Rule 10(6) of CCS (CCA) Rules within 90 days.
Whether a review committee's recommendation for reinstatement must be implemented by the institute.
Whether serious charges of rape and murder justify overriding statutory suspension limits under CCS (CCA) Rules.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India v. Dipak MaliApplied¶8
[2010(2) SCC 222] · Who else cites this
Union of India v. Rajiv KumarDistinguished¶7
(2003) 6 SCC 516 · Who else cites this
Manager Nirmala Senior Secondary School, Port Blair v. N.I.Khan and OthersDistinguished¶7
(2003) 12 SCC 84 · Who else cites this
Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India and anotherDistinguished¶7
2015(1) ILR Kerala Series 767 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT
SUBHASH K.M.
ASHOK BHUSHAN
A.M.SHAFFIQUE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
