University employee challenged disciplinary proceedings for insubordination and deliberate deletion of an electronic file, and the minor penalty of withholding one increment for six months. The Division Bench found the enquiry complied with the University Statutes and upheld the Single Judge's judgment dismissing the challenge.
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
THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV
&
THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICEP.M.MANOJ
THURSDAY,THE23RDDAYOFMAY2024/2NDJYAISHTA,1946
WANO.653OF2024
AGAINSTTHEORDER/JUDGMENTDATEDINWP(C)NO.33572OF2023OF
HIGHCOURTOFKERALA
APPELLANT/S:
SHEFFIQHUSSAIN
AGED34YEARS
S/OHUSSAIN,ZAMZAMMANZIL,ZILLACOURTWARD,
THATHAMPALLYPO,ALAPPUZHADISTRICT,PIN-688013ISNOW
RESIDINGATHUSSAINMANZIL,NEARJAMALUDHEENJUMA
MASJID,ARRATTUVAZHIP.O,ALAPPUZHADISTRICT,PIN:
688007,SENIORGRADEASSISTANT,MAHATMAGANDHI
UNIVERSITY,PRIYADARSINIHILLS,KOTTAYAMDISTRICTPIN:
686560.,PIN-686560
BYADVS.
RAGHULSUDHEESH
J.LAKSHMI
ELIZABETHMATHEW
AMBILYT.VENU
ZAKIYAISMAIL
RESPONDENT/S:
1
STATEOFKERALA
2
W.A.No.653 of 2024
REPRESENTEDBYCHIEFSECRETARY,GOVERNMENTSECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANATHAPURAM,PIN-695001
2MAHATMAGANDHIUNIVERSITY
REPRESENTEDBYREGISTRAR,PRIYADARSINIHILLS,KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT,PIN-686560
3 THE VICE CHANCELLOR MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT P, PIN - 6865604 THE CHANCELLOR KERALA RAJ BHAWAN , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695099BYADVS.
S.PRASANTH
P.SREEKUMAR(SR.)(K/410/1994)
OTHER PRESENT:
SRIUNNIKRISHNAKAIMAL,SR.GP.,SRISPRASANTH,SCFOR
CHANCELLOROFUNIVERSITIESOFKERALA,SRISURINGEORGE
IPE,SCFORMGUNIVERSITY
THISWRITAPPEALHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON
23.05.2024,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING:
3
W.A.No.653 of 2024
J U D G M E N T
Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.
The appellant, a Senior Grade Assistant, working at Mahatma Gandhi University, has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.2.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned Single Judge refused to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant and the minor penalty imposed against him.
as follows:
a) The appellant commenced his service as a Senior Grade Assistant on 14.2.2019, at the Mahatma Gandhi University. On 26.10.2019, the
Pro-Vice Chancellor issued an order granting special accommodations to
4
W.A.No.653 of 2024
Gokul Krishana M.S., a deaf and mute student, pursuing a B.Sc. Mathematics (Model I) at Sree Sankara Vidyapeetom College. These accommodations included exemption from the 2nd language examination of the first semester (October 2019) and the second semester (October 2020) along with an allotment of 25% grace marks/10% grace grade points. Consequently, Gokul did not attend the examinations. However, upon publication of the results, it was noted that Gokul was marked absent for Sanskrit (2nd language) for both semesters and was declared as failed.
b) On 25/08/2021, the Principal of Sree Sankara Vidyapeetom College
submitted a complaint to the Controller of Examinations of the University. This complaint was forwarded from the Tapal Examination Section to the appellant for further action. The appellant created a file labeled DDFS 115855/CBCSS 18-1/2021 and forwarded it to the immediate Section Officer on 3.9.2021. The Section Officer then
5
W.A.No.653 of 2024
forwarded it to the Assistant Registrar on the same day for further action. The Assistant Registrar returned the file to the Section Officer with a note reading "please discuss." However, the Section Officer, without noticing this note, returned the file to the appellant. The appellant noticed the note and, seeking clarification, remarked, "Please write as a note what is the matter she wants to discuss," and resubmitted the file to the Section Officer on 6.9.2021. The Section Officer discussed the matter with the Assistant Registrar and then returned the file to the appellant, advising him to take further action based on the examination manual.
c) The appellant then submitted the file directly to the Deputy Registrar. After reviewing the file, the Deputy Registrar found the appellant’s remarks to be an act of serious insubordination and returned the file to the Section Officer on 6.9.2021. The appellant states that the file was disposed of on the same day, and that there was no mechanism to
6
W.A.No.653 of 2024
retrieve it once it has been disposed of. On 9.9.2021, with the help of the IT Cell, the appellant recreated a new file with all the attachments and sent it through the proper channel. On 21.11.2021, the Controller of Examinations issued orders to grant the University average mark to Gokul, thus addressing his grievance.
7
W.A.No.653 of 2024
guilty of insubordination. The appellant claims that he was not served with the inquiry report.
f) On 13.5.2022, on receipt of the enquiry report, the 2nd respondent issued a memo of charges proposing to withhold increments permanently for a period of six months with cumulative effect and sought an explanation within seven days. The appellant submitted his reply (Ext.P7) on 20.5.2022. On 21.6.2022, the 3rd respondent issued an order (Ext.P8) imposing a punishment by barring one increment permanently for six months with cumulative effect. The appellant requested the 2nd respondent for copies of the documents and evidence relied upon by the enquiry officer, but his request was rejected on 3.8.2022. On 2.7.2022, the 3rd respondent issued another punishment order imposing the same punishment and cancelled Ext.P8 without providing a reason.
8
W.A.No.653 of 2024
g) The appellant filed W.P.(C) No.28508/2022 challenging Ext.P10 order, supported by documents obtained under the Right to Information Act,2005. The writ petition was disposed of directing the appellant to file an appeal before the competent authority. After hearing Ext.P10 was modified, by barring of one increment for six months to barring one increment without cumulative effect by Ext.P13 order. The appellant challenges Ext.P5 enquiry report and Exts.P10 and P13 orders.
9
W.A.No.653 of 2024
alleged acts and sought leniency. It was concluded on the basis of the materials that the admission of the petitioner of attempting to erase files which were the subject of the proceedings, tantamount to destruction of evidence. The relevant Statutes under Part III, Chapter 4 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statute 1997, were also adverted to and it was held that the requirements for imposing a minor penalty were met. Finally, it was held that the statutory provisions were adhered to by the University during the enquiry, and the judicial review scope in such matters is limited.
10
W.A.No.653 of 2024
ought to have been attributed to him for accidentally deleting a message. The learned counsel would also point out that the Chancellor while issuing Ext.P13 order failed to consider the relevant facts.
11
W.A.No.653 of 2024
without securing permission from his superiors. The fact that the appellant had been regularly handling DDFS files and such deletion could not have happened inadvertently was the conclusion arrived at by the University. It was in the said circumstances that an enquiry officer was appointed to conduct further investigation into the matter. A memo of charges dated 24.1.2022 was issued to the appellant. The allegation in the charges were as under:
report on 5.4.2022 wherein it is stated that the explanation offered by the appellant was not satisfactory and recommended disciplinary action
12
W.A.No.653 of 2024
against the appellant under the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1977. The University issued a notice to the appellant asking him to show cause against the tentative decision and as to why a minor punishment of barring one increment permanently for six months with cumulative effect shall not be imposed against him. The appellant had responded by Ext.P4 reply and after narrating his contentions took a stand that he was a novice and requested for pardon. He also stated that he will not repeat the mistakes committed by him. His explanation was rejected and order dated 21.6.2022 was issued under Chapter 4, Part III, Statute 35A(iii) imposing minor penalty of withholding of one increment for a period of six months with cumulative effect. On the premise that certain errors had crept in, a fresh order dated 2.7.2022 was issued.
13
W.A.No.653 of 2024
of the show cause notice wherein he had admitted in unequivocal terms the malfeasance alleged against him and pleaded leniency in the matter of punishment. He had no contention at that stage that he was not served with a copy of the enquiry report. Furthermore, the learned Single Judge also adverted to Statutes 35 and 55 in Part III Chapter 4 of the University Statute 1997 that the requirements of the Statute were met in the instant case.
14
W.A.No.653 of 2024
confirmation button would the file be deleted. The materials clearly disclose that the appellant had been regularly handling DDFS files. It was based on the above that it was concluded that the file was deliberately deleted by the appellant with a view to obscure his acts of insubordination and indiscipline. The learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the contention of the appellant that the deletion was accidental and due to lack of computer awareness.
15
W.A.No.653 of 2024
months, without cumulative effect. As held by the learned Single Judge, the scope of judicial review in these matters is extremely limited. We find no reason to interfere with the considered judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge.
This appeal is dismissed.
sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE
sd/P.M.MANOJ JUDGE
das
3 issues framed by the court
Whether failure to serve a copy of the enquiry report vitiated the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant.
Whether the deletion of the electronic file was accidental or deliberate, amounting to insubordination and destruction of evidence.
Whether the Division Bench should interfere with the Single Judge's refusal to disturb the minor penalty.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sheffiq Hussain
State of Kerala
Mahatma Gandhi University
The Vice Chancellor, Mahatma Gandhi University
The Chancellor, Kerala Raj Bhawan
Raja Vijayaraghavan V
P.M. Manoj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court