Allowed

Dr. G. Reghukumar v. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit

Kerala HC8 Dec 2021WA/1628/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against a transfer order imposed as a minor punishment for sexual harassment misconduct. The court held transfer as punishment impermissible under silent service rules, quashed the order, and directed fresh action.

What did the court decide?

Quashed Ext.P9 order directing transfer; directed respondents to pass fresh orders within a month; appellant permitted to rejoin duty at Koyilandy.

Dr. G. Reghukumar Vs Sree Sankaracharya… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | 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.

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA,

¶7

1943

¶8

WA NO. 1628 OF 2021

¶9

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 26284/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF

¶10

KERALA

¶11

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶12

DR. G. REGHUKUMAR ASSISTANT-PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MALAYALAM, SREE SANKARACHARYA SANSKRIT UNIVERSITY REGIONAL CENTRE, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV JOSHI N.THOMAS

¶14

RESPONDENTS:

¶15

1 SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT P.O.KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 574 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶16

2 THE VICE-CHANCELLOR SREESANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, P.O.KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 574.

¶17

3 THE REGISTRAR SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, P.O.KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 574.

¶18

4 THE DIRECTOR REGIONAL CENTRE, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶19

5 THE CHAIRPERSON INTERNAL COMPLAINT COMMITTEE, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, P.O.KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 574.

¶20

6 DR.KAVITHA RAMAN

¶21

WA NO. 1628 OF 2021

¶22

:: 2 :

¶23

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR MALAYALAM, NOW AT SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, P.O.KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 574. BY SHRI.PRASANTH S., SC, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

WA NO. 1628 OF 2021

¶26

:: 3 :

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J

¶29

This writ appeal has been preferred by the petitioner in WP(C)No.26284 of 2021, aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.11.2021 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows:

¶30

The appellant/writ petitioner had joined the first respondentUniversity at its Regional Centre at Thuravoor as Lecturer in Malayalam on 10.06.1996 and was regularised in service on 01.03.2011 when he was permanently appointed as Lecturer and posted at Regional Centre Thiruvananthapuram. Thereafter, he was posted at the Regional Centre Ettumanur and eventually, reached the Koyilandy Regional Centre as Teacher in-charge. While so, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him pursuant to a complaint of sexual harassment. The said proceedings culminated in a finding against the appellant and a punishment of censure being imposed on the appellant. When the communication from the respondents, intimating him of the said punishment, was received by the appellant, he made some endorsements thereon and returned the said letter to the respondents. The endorsements referred to above were seen as constituting a separate misconduct, and a show cause

¶31

WA NO. 1628 OF 2021

¶32

:: 4 :

¶33

notice was, therefore, issued to the appellant asking him to show cause as to why he should not be proceeded against for the said misconduct. The proceedings initiated were eventually closed by the respondents after taking note of the letter (Annexure R1(m)) sent by the appellant, admitting to the misconduct, but seeking a lenient view in the matter of punishment. In Annexure R1(n) letter issued by the respondents, the proceedings against the appellant were closed by transferring the appellant to the Regional Centre at Payyannur. It was the said order of the respondents that was impugned by the appellant in the writ petition, which the learned Single Judge dismissed. The learned Single Judge found that the transfer was purely an administrative matter and could not be said to be punitive in nature, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶34

Before us, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the transfer ordered by the respondents is vitiated since the order was not issued by the competent authority under the Rules. He therefore, prays that the judgment of the learned Single Judge be interfered with and the appeal allowed.

¶35

Per contra, Sri.Prashanth.S, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-University would submit that the respondents had decided to take a lenient view in the matter, taking note of the apology letter sent by the appellant and it was under those

¶36

WA NO. 1628 OF 2021

¶37

:: 5 :

¶38

circumstances that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant were closed by ordering a transfer to the nearest station namely Payyannur. It is contended that in as much as the transfer does not visit the appellant with any serious consequence, and the respondent was well within its right to impose a minor punishment on the appellant taking note of the admission of guilt by the appellant, the judgment of the learned Single Judge need not be interfered with.

¶39

After hearing the rival submissions, we are of the view that notwithstanding the fact that the appellant had admitted to the misconduct and claimed a leniency in the matter of punishment, it was not open to the respondents to impose the punishment of transfer which, even according to the respondent, is not a permissible punishment under the Rules governing the establishment. As a matter of fact, he submits that the Rules are silent as to what amounts to a minor punishment and it was under these circumstances that the punishment of transfer was imposed. We find, however, that while under normal circumstances a transfer is not interfered with when it is ordered in the exigencies of service, courts have consistently frowned upon a transfer that is imposed by way of punishment, unless the said punishment is specifically included as a minor punishment in the Rules. Taking cue from the said position in law, we are of the view that Ext.P9 order impugned in the writ petition (also produced as Annexure R1 (n)) cannot be legally sustained inasmuch as it directs a transfer of the appellant to Payyannur by way of punishment. We make it clear that

¶40

WA NO. 1628 OF 2021

¶41

:: 6 :

¶42

we are not interfering with the said order to the extent it finds the appellant guilty of the misconduct and decides to impose a minor punishment on him. We therefore allow the writ appeal to the limited extent mentioned above, by setting aside Ext.P9 (Annexure R1(n)) order, and without prejudice to the right of the respondents to impose an appropriate punishment authorized by law on the appellant. The respondents shall pass fresh orders as directed within a month from today. The appellant shall, in the meanwhile, be permitted to re-join duty at Koyilandy.

¶43

The writ appeal is disposed as above.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶46

Sd/- MOHAMMED NIAS C.P JUDGE

¶47

dlk/8/12/

¶48

WA NO. 1628 OF 2021

¶49

:: 7 :

¶50

APPENDIX

¶51

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: NIL

¶52

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES:

¶53

ANNEXURE R1(a): AN EXTRACT OF UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION(MINIMMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS AND OTHER ACADEMIC STAFF IN UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES AND OTHER MEASURES FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF STANDARDS IN HIGHER EDUCATION) REGULATIONS, 2018, REGULATING THE QUALIFICATION OF THE TEACHERS.

¶54

ANNEXURE R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 12.11.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE CONVENER, INTERNAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE

¶55

ANNEXURE R1(c): TRUE COPY OF MEMO NO.ADA2/13542/SSUS/2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶56

ANNEXURE R1(d): TRUE COPY OF ANNEXURE R1(C) MEMO RETURNED BY THE PETITIONER WITH HIS NOTES

¶57

ANNEXURE R1(e): TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 16.12.2020 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶58

ANNEXURE R1(f): TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE CONFIRMED MINUTES OF THE 187TH MEETING OF THE SYNDICATE HELD ON 28.01.2021

¶59

ANNEXURE R1(g): TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.ADA2/13542/SSUS/2019 DATED 27.02.2021

¶60

ANNEXURE R1(h): TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 19.03.2021 SENT BY THE PETITIONER.

¶61

ANNEXURE R1(i): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ADA2/13542/SSUS/2018 DATED 08.04.2021 SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶62

ANNEXURE R1(j): TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED

¶63

WA NO. 1628 OF 2021

¶64

:: 8 :

¶65

16.04.021 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE R1(k): TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.ADA2/13542/SSUS/2019 DATED 03.06.2021 SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE R1(l): TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.ADA2/13542/SSUS/2019 DATED 22.10.2021 ANNEXURE R1(m): TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 03.11.2021 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE R1(n): TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.ADA2/13542/SSUS/2018 DATED 10.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Dr. G. Reghukumar v. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. G. Reghukumar v. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Kerala Vs Nasari Cheriyath

Dr.Jageer P.P. Vs Principal Secretary to Government

The Manager Vs the State of Kerala

Lijo Anto M.A. Vs Manager, (Prof.S.K.Krishnan Nampoothiri)

Shaji P. Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Jitha G. Vs the Cochin University of Science and Technology