Disposed

Surendran.P v. Kannur University

Kerala HC12 Dec 2019WP(C)/17824/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition filed by a librarian suspended from service for alleged financial misappropriation. The High Court directed the University to finalize proceedings regarding the suspension order within three months after receiving the petitioner's objections and to pay due increments.

What did the court decide?

University directed to finalize proceedings regarding the suspension order within three months and pay due increments from 2016.

Surendran.P Vs Kannur University — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.17824 OF 2016(C)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SURENDRAN.P AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR K.N., PAPPINISSERY HOUSE, KOORKARA, CHALAKODE P.O., PAYYANNUR VIA, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 KANNUR UNIVERSITY THAVAKKARA, CIVIL STATION P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶11

2 THE REGISTRAR

¶12

KANNUR UNIVERSITY, THAVAKKARA, CIVIL STATION P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 002

¶13

3 THE PRO VICE CHANCELLOR KANNUR UNIVERSITY, THAVAKKARA, CIVIL STATION P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 002

¶14

4 THE VICE CHANCELLOR KANNUR UNIVERSITY, THAVAKKARA, CIVIL STATION P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 002

¶15

5 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANATHAPURAM-695 001.

¶16

R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR

¶17

SRI.VIJU THOMAS, SC, KANNUR UNIVERSITY R5 BY SRI.JESTIN MATHEW, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-12-2019, THE COURT ON 12-12-2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No.17824 OF 2016(C)

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner

¶23

seeking the following reliefs:

¶24

(i) issue a writ of certiorari or any writ, order or direction to quash Ext.P3.

¶25

(ii) to command the respondents to revoke the suspension and permit the petitioner to continue in service forthwith.

¶26

(iii) to declare that the restriction imposed by Rule 22 of the Kerala Government Servants Conduct Rules is not applicable to a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶27

(iv) in the alternative to declare that Rule 22 of the Kerala Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1960 is invalid, in so far as it applies to a proceedings under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶28

(v) award cost to the petitioner

¶29

(vi) issue such other writ or order as this Honourable Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶30

Material facts for the disposal of the writ

¶31

petition are as follows; petitioner is working as Librarian in the service of the Kannur University.

¶32

WP(C).No.17824 OF 2016(C)

¶33

¶34

While working as Junior Librarian, he has noticed certain serious financial misappropriation by way of drawing salary in the name of persons, who had not worked in the University and also in other ways. Complaining about the serious irregularities and financial misappropriation, petitioner submitted complaints before the University Authorities. In the audit report conducted by the Controller and Auditor General, serious irregularities were found out. According to the petitioner, in spite of all the efforts made by the petitioner, no actions were taken against the persons, who are responsible for the misappropriation. In the enquiry conducted, a report was submitted by the Deputy Registrar, in which it is stated that, the charges levelled against the Head of the Department is of criminal nature and there is substance in the allegation and suggested for enquiry through an agency competent for the same. Anyhow, without considering the reply, 2^nd respondent issued Ext.P3 order suspending the petitioner from service. According to the petitioner, Ext.P3 is absolutely

¶35

WP(C).No.17824 OF 2016(C)

¶36

¶37

illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable liable to be interfered with by this court in the writ jurisdiction. Apart from the same, other directions are also sought for at the Chancellor level in order to unearth the allegations made by the petitioner against the Authorities of the University.

¶38

A statement is filed by the University justifying the stand adopted in Ext.P3 order of suspension. It is also pointed out that, petitioner was permitted to submit suitable objection to the order of suspension in order to carry out an enquiry

¶39

and therefore, according to the respondent University, it is for the purpose of unearthing the truth that, the order of suspension was issued having found that serious allegations are made by the petitioner against the superior officers of the University and due to the pendency of this writ petition, further proceedings were not taken following Ext.P3.

¶40

Anyhow, when this writ petition was admitted

¶41

to the files of this court, an interim order was

¶42

WP(C).No.17824 OF 2016(C)

¶43

¶44

passed on 20.5.2016 staying operation of Ext.P3 for a

¶45

period of one month and thereafter it was extended until further orders on 20.6.2016. Learned counsel

¶46

for petitioner also submitted that, petitioner is not paid with increment from the year 2016 onwards. It is also submitted that, petitioner was later reinstated in service.

¶47

After evaluating the situation and hearing respective counsel, I am of the considered opinion

¶48

that, this writ petition is to be given a quietus by making appropriate directions. Ext.P3 order shows

¶49

that, petitioner was served with a show cause notice and petitioner has submitted a reply. The reply submitted by the petitioner was not acceptable to the

¶50

respondent University and thereupon that, the suspension order was passed and petitioner was

¶51

directed to participate in the enquiry proceedings.

¶52

It is also clear from the suspension order that, petitioner was entitled to get subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. It is also obvious that, since Ext.P3 order of suspension was stayed by

¶53

WP(C).No.17824 OF 2016(C)

¶54

¶55

this court, the University could not have proceeded with the enquiry since it would have violated the interim order passed by this court.

¶56

Anyhow petitioner was reinstated in service and therefore, it is only appropriate that this writ petition is disposed of, directing the University to finalise the proceedings pertaining to Ext.P3, after receiving suitable objection from the petitioner within a time period. I am also informed that petitioner has already filed objection to Ext.P3.

¶57

In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the University to finalise the proceedings pertaining to Ext.P3 at the earliest possible time and at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after providing a notice of hearing and participation to the petitioner. I also make it clear that, if any increment is due to the petitioner as is submitted, from the year 2016 onwards, it shall be paid to the petitioner without any delay. Any other adverse consequences due to the order of suspension will be

¶58

WP(C).No.17824 OF 2016(C)

¶59

¶60

guided by the decision taken by the University in accordance with the directions contained above. Respondents shall also take into account the provisions of The Whistle Blowers Protection Act,

¶61

2011 while adjudicating the issues.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

Smv 12.12.2019

JUDGE

WP(C).No.17824 OF 2016(C)

¶67

¶68

APPENDIX

¶69

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶70

P1.	TRUE COPY OF THE WPC NO.10149/2016 WITHOUT ITS EXHIBITS
P1(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P10 IN WPC 10149/2016 DATED 21/1/2016.
P2.	TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 11/4/2016.
P2(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FURNISHED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST EXT.P2 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
P3.	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4/5/2016 SUSPENDING THE PETITIONER FROM SERVICE
P4.	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS COURT IN CRL.MC NO.5414/2015.
P5.	TRUE COPY OF THE WHISTLE BLOWERS PROTECTION ACT, 2011 PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA DATED 12/5/2014.
EXHIBIT P6:	A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF FIXATION OF PAY BASED ON 10TH PAY REVISION
EXHIBIT P7:	TRUE COPY OF THE PAY SLIP FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2016
EXHIBIT P7(A):	TRUE COPY OF THE PAY SLIP FOR THE MONTH OF MAY 2017 AND OF MAY 2018
EXHIBIT P7(B):	TRUE COPY OF THE PAY SLIP FOR THE MONTH OF MAY 2019

Surendran.P v. Kannur University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendran.P v. Kannur University

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

P.v.Suhas, Vs Arjitha

Rajan Nair T.P. Vs the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development

Saheer Babu K.T. Vs the University of Calicut

Baithan Kutty Vs Asif.K.Yousif

P.K.Sukumara Panicker Vs the State of Kerala

Rohit M Vs Sree Chitra Thirunal College of Engineering