Allowed

Dr.Antony Palackal v. the University of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Dec 2021WA/1307/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed this writ appeal, quashing orders that removed the appellant from the post of Head of Department and as a subject expert. The court held these were punishments following an invalid preliminary enquiry, ordering reinstatement and a compliant disciplinary process.

What did the court decide?

Ext. P14 and P15 orders quashed; appellant reinstated as Head of Department pending disciplinary findings; University directed to complete proceedings within 3 months.

Dr.Antony Palackal Vs the University of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. MONDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA,

¶6

1943

¶7

WA NO. 1307 OF 2021

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 2-9-2021 IN WP(C) 17680/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

APPELLANT/PETITIONER :

¶10

DR.ANTONY PALACKAL,S/O. P.V.VARGHESE, AGED 57 YEARS, 'BODHI' PALACKAL, GRA K 44A, MANKUZHY LANE, GANDHIPURAM, SREEKARYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695017.

¶11

BY ADVS. ARUN CHANDRAN NISHA GEORGE GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 :

¶13

1 THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR.

¶14

2 THE SYNDICATE, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR.

¶15

3 THE COMBINED STANDING COMMITTEES OF THE SYNDICATE ON STAFF, EQUIPMENT AND BUILDINGS AND ACADEMICS AND RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034, REPRESENTED BY THE CONVENER OF ACADEMICS AND RESEARCH.

¶16

4 DR. SANDHYA R.S., PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034.

¶17

:2:

¶18

W.A No.1307 of 2021

¶19

*ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED. 5 ADDL.R5. DR.UTHARA SOMAN, HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY, S.N.COLLEGE,CHEMPAZHANTHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.RESIDING AT FLAT NO.3A,SFS FAIRMONT, M.P.APPAN NAGAR, VAZHUTHACAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.

¶20

ADDITIONAL R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 17.12.2021 IN I.A.1/2021 IN WA 1307/2021.

¶21

BY ADVS. THOMAS ABRAHAM SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) K.SUDHINKUMAR S.K.ADHITHYAN SABU PULLAN GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN

¶22

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

:3:

¶24

W.A No.1307 of 2021

¶25

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JJ.

¶26

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

¶27

W.A No. 1307 of 2021

¶28

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20^th day of December, 2021

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J

¶31

The petitioner in the Writ Petition No.17680 of 2021 is the appellant before us aggrieved by the judgment dated 2-9-2021 of the learned Single Judge. The brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the writ appeal, are as follows :

¶32

The appellant/writ petitioner is the Professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Kerala in its Kariavattom Campus at Thiruvananthapuram. Based on a complaint received from a teacher, who appeared before a screening cum selection committee in connection with her promotion, where the appellant, was the subject expert, the response of the appellant was sought by the University. While the appellant submitted his response, a preliminary enquiry appears to have been conducted by the University, pursuant to which it is stated to have drawn up a report, a copy of which is not seen served on the appellant. Based on the said report, Ext.P14 and Ext.P15 orders dated 18-08-2021 were served on the appellant removing him from his position as Head of the Department of Sociology as also from the

¶33

:4:

¶34

W.A No.1307 of 2021

¶35

membership of the Screening cum Evaluation and Selection Committee of the University. Although the appellant, in the writ petition contended that the orders impugned in the writ petition had the effect of depriving him of valid rights and that the procedure leading up to the punishment imposed on him was not in accordance with the statutes of the University, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the finding that the removal of the appellant from the post of Head of Department, on rotational basis, and as a subject expert in the screening cum evaluation and selection committee cannot be treated as harsh for the purposes of calling it a punishment . The learned Single Judge, therefore, found that there was no ground for interference with those orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶36

Before us, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge erred in finding that there was no punishment imposed on the appellant. It is pointed out that a mere perusal of Ext.P14 and Ext.P15 orders would reveal that findings prejudicial to the appellant have been entered by the University and the orders passed have the effect of removing him from the post of Head of Department of Sociology, which was conferred on him based on his seniority in the department and his turn on rotation. In particular, it is pointed out that such a valuable right of the appellant could not have been taken away by the University on the mere findings in a preliminary enquiry, which had nothing to do with his status as Head of the Department of Sociology, but was entirely in connection with his role as the subject expert in a Screening cum Evaluation Committee constituted

:5:

W.A No.1307 of 2021

by the University.

We have heard sri.Navaneeth Krishnan, the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.Thomas Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University and Sri.P.Mohandas, the learned counsel for the additional 5th respondent. On a consideration of the rival submissions, and on a perusal of the documents produced along with the writ petition, we find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the sequence of events leading to Ext.P14 and Ext.P15 orders, that were impugned in the writ petition, clearly revealed that the proceedings that preceded the issuance of these orders were in the nature of a preliminary enquiry conducted by the University for ascertaining the veracity of the allegations made by the additional 5th respondent against the appellant herein. The complaint received from the additional 5^th respondent, when forwarded to the appellant, he responded to the same and thereafter he was called for a hearing in connection with the said complaint. At the hearing, the appellant was heard on the contents of his response and, it is the specific case of the appellant that he was not furnished with a report of the preliminary enquiry conducted by the University. It is also pointed out that the other members of the Screening cum Evaluation Committee were not called for the hearing despite the specific request of the appellant for the same as evidenced in Ext.P11 and Ext.P12 letters produced along with the writ petition. We find, therefore, that Ext.P14 and Ext.P15 orders cannot be legally sustained since they cannot be seen as orders passed pursuant to a valid enquiry conducted in accordance with the statutory procedure

¶41

:6:

¶42

W.A No.1307 of 2021

¶43

envisaged under the University Act and Regulations, which orders alone could have had the result of removing the appellant/writ petitioner from his position as Head of Department, that he had secured consequent to his seniority and turn on rotational basis.

¶44

We, therefore, allow this writ appeal by quashing Ext.P14 and Ext.P15 orders and directing the respondent University to treat the enquiry conducted pursuant to the receipt of the complaint from the additional 5^th respondent solely as a preliminary enquiry and draw up a fresh report, in accordance with law, after hearing the appellant and the additional 5^th respondent in the matter. Before drawing up the report of the preliminary enquiry, the University shall also consider the request of the appellant for hearing the other members of the Screening cum Evaluation Committee. On drawing up the report of the preliminary enquiry, a copy of the same, together with the proposal for any action against the appellant, if found necessary, by the University, shall be served on the appellant and the disciplinary proceedings thus initiated completed strictly in accordance with the procedure mandated by the University Statutes. The University shall complete the aforesaid exercise within a period of three months from the date of a receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶45

In the meanwhile, since we have quashed Ext.P14 and Ext.P15 orders, the University shall forthwith reinstate the appellant as Head of the Department of Sociology, for the rest of his term subject to the findings in the disciplinary proceedings referred above. The said findings shall also inform the decision of the University with regard to

¶46

:7:

¶47

W.A No.1307 of 2021

¶48

confirming the membership of the appellant as a subject expert in the

¶49

screening cum evaluation committee.

¶50

The writ appeal is allowed as above.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE

¶55

amk

Dr.Antony Palackal v. the University of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Antony Palackal v. the 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

T.P.Murali @ Murali Thavara Panen Vs Kerala Agricultural University

D.Bijukumar Vs Kerala Agriculture University

Shanid M Vs the State of Kerala

Rajin K.P., Vs University of Calicut

Sangeetha Vs Union of India

Ravisankar P.C. Vs State of Kerala