Dismissed

Dr.Vijayakumar C.P.V. v. Central University of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Feb 2018WA/444/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed the appellant.'s writ appeal challenging the termination of his services during probation. The court held that termination during the probationary period is permissible based on assessment of performance without a prior disciplinary enquiry and did not cast a stigma.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed, upholding the judgment terminating the appellant's services during probation.

Dr.Vijayakumar C.P.V. Vs Central University… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANNIE JOHN

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1939

¶6

WA.No. 444 of 2018 IN WPC. 39013/2017

¶7

AGAINST JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 39013/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 30.01.2018

¶8

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶9

DR.VIJAYAKUMARAN C.P.V., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF HINDI, CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, VIDHYA NAGAR CAMPUS, KASARGOD, PIN 671 123.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.V.VARGHESE SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, TEJASWINI HILLS PERIYE P.O., KASARAGOD, PIN 671 316, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶13

VICE CHANCELLOR, CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, TEJASWINI HILLS, PERIYE P.O., KASARAGOD, PIN: 671 316.

¶14

REGISTRAR, CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, TEJASWINI HILLS, PERIYE P.O., KASARAGOD, PIN: 671 316.

¶15

R BY SRI.V.SAJITH KUMAR, SC, CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA

¶16

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

K. SURENDRA MOHAN & ANNIE JOHN, JJ.

¶18

-------------------------------------------

¶19

W.A. No. 444 of 2018

¶20

-----------------------------------------Dated this the 20^th day of February, 2018.

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

K. Surendra Mohan,J.

¶23

The writ petitioner is before us challenging the judgment dated 30.01.2018 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the same. The appellant was appointed as Associate Professor in Hindi by the first respondent University as per Ext.P1 with effect from 12.06.2017. As per the terms of his appointment, he was to be on probation for a period of 12 months from the date of joining. However, as per Ext.P13 proceedings of the University dated 30.11.2017, he has been terminated, finding on the basis of his performance that he was not suitable for continuation and confirmation in service. The writ petition was filed by the appellant challenging Ext.P13.

¶24

The case of the appellant is that the respondents were inimical towards him for having filed W.P.(C) No. 7456 of 2017 earlier. The respondents had conspired together to cause false complaints of sexual harassment to be preferred against him by some students. An enquiry was conducted by the Internal Complaints Committee of the University. The report of the Committee is Ext.P9. Though the appellant had submitted Ext.P10 explanation to the same, even before the same was received, a considered decision was taken to terminate him. Reliance was placed on Ext.P15 minutes of the Executive Council

¶25

W.A. No. 444/2018

¶26

-2-

¶27

to contend that his explanation was not placed before the Council. Therefore, he sought for interference with Ext.P13 and his termination from service.

¶28

The writ petition was contested by the respondents. A statement was filed by the first respondent contending that the appellant had been appointed on the specific condition that he would be on probation for a period of 12 months, during which period, his services were liable to be terminated without notice, if the same was found to be unsatisfactory. Since there were serious complaints against the appellant, evidenced by Exts.R1(a) to R1(g), an enquiry was conducted by the Internal Complaints Committee. According to the respondents, all the students in the Department had refused to attend the appellant's classes. As a consequence, the University was forced to continue the appellant in service without assigning him any academic work. The appellant's reply, Ext.P10, was placed before the Executive Council and the same was also considered. According to the University, Ext.P9 report was only one of the reasons for terminating his probation. The allegations of mala fides were refuted.

¶29

A reply affidavit was filed by the appellant producing Ext.P27 minutes of the Executive Council in support of his contention that his explanation was not considered at the meeting held on 30.11.2017.

¶30

W.A. No. 444/2018

¶31

-3-

¶32

The learned Single Judge considered the respective contentions, took note of the fact that the appellant had been continuing on probation and that the University was within its rights in deciding to terminate the probation of the appellant and therefore, dismissed the writ petition.

¶33

According to Adv. V. Varghese, who appears for the appellant, Ext.P13 refers to Ext.P9 report of the Internal Complaints Committee. Ext.P9 report indicts the appellant, finding that the complaints against him were genuine and that he was guilty of the alleged objectionable conduct. The appellant had submitted Ext.P10 questioning the report. His termination relying on the said report has cast a stigma on his character and career. It ought not have been done without affording him an opportunity to explain his conduct and defend himself. Though Ext.P13 refers to certain 'other documents', there is no indication as to what the said documents were. According to the learned counsel, it was necessary for the appellant to have been placed under suspension and a proper enquiry conducted into the charges against him before finding him guilty. The learned Single Judge has by declining to interfere with Ext.P13 caused serious prejudice to the appellant who has had a blemishless career throughout.

¶34

W.A. No. 444/2018

¶35

-4-

¶36

According to Adv. V. Sajith Kumar, who appears for the respondent, Ext.P13 does not cast any stigma on the appellant for the reason that the same has only resorted to terminate the services of the appellant, finding that he was not suitable to be confirmed in the service of the University. Such termination within the period of probation was fully justified, according to the learned counsel.

¶37

Heard. We have perused the judgment appealed against. We have also been taken through the documents produced on the side of the appellants as well as those on the side of the respondents. We have given an anxious consideration to the contentions put forward. We notice that the appellant was appointed to the post of Associate Professor only on 04.07.2017 with effect from 12.06.2017. As per the terms of his appointment, he was to continue on probation for a period of 12 months. Therefore, his performance was liable to be assessed during his period of probation and if found unsatisfactory, he is liable to be terminated. A perusal of Ext.P13 shows that his services have been terminated, finding on the basis of his performance that he was not suitable for continuation and confirmation in service. It is mentioned that the conclusion has been arrived at on the basis of the report of the Internal Complaints Committee, other documents and academic performance. Therefore, we are not satisfied that any

¶38

W.A. No. 444/2018

¶39

-5-

¶40

stigma has been cast on the appellant by Ext.P13 order. The termination of probation on an assessment of his performance by his employer is permissible. It is not necessary for such termination to be preceded by a disciplinary enquiry as canvassed for by the counsel for the appellant. Therefore, we are not satisfied that Ext.P13 is required to be interfered with .

¶41

The other contention of the counsel for the appellant is that Ext.P13 is the culmination of an effort to oust him from service commenced by the respondents, who were on enemical terms. The enemity is alleged to have emanated from his action in filing an earlier writ petition. However, we do not find any material to support his contentions. A perusal of Ext.P9 shows that a Sub Committee constituted for the purpose of enquiring into the complaints against the appellant had submitted a report, which is referred to as one of the materials to arrive at the conclusion in Ext.P13. It is further pointed out that the appellant who had joined the University only on 04.07.2017 was proceeded against on the basis of the complaints that were received in July 2017 itself. Though according to the counsel for the appellant, complaints were all fabricated at the instance of the persons who had conspired against him, we do not find any material to support the said contention. Therefore, we do not find it necessary to

¶42

W.A. No. 444/2018 -6-

¶43

go into the said aspect of the matter at any length. Suffice it to point out that, there were sufficient materials to support Ext.P13.

¶44

Having perused the judgment appealed against, we are satisfied that the learned Single Judge has appreciated the matter in the proper perspective and has considered all the relevant aspects of the case. We do not find any infirmity in the judgment warranting an interference in appeal. Writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.

¶45

K. SURENDRA MOHAN,

¶46

JUDGE.

¶47

ANNIE JOHN, JUDGE.

¶48

¶49

W.A. No. 444/2018 -7-

Dr.Vijayakumar C.P.V. v. Central University of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Vijayakumar C.P.V. v. Central University of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Cochin University of Science and Technology Vs Jasmine Alex

Akthar Sait Vs Abdul Ziyad

State of Kerala Vs Sameer Oniyil

Mahatma Gandhi University Vs Bijamma Thomas

N.M.George Vs the Secretary

The Deputy Director of Collegiate Education Vs Dr. Roshin George