Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 494 (KER)

Pradeepkumar T v. Kerala Agricultural University

2025-03-06

N.NAGARESH

body2025
JUDGMENT : N. NAGARESH, J. The petitioner is the Professor and Head, Department of Vegetable Science under the 1 st respondent- Kerala Agricultural University. The petitioner seeks to quash Exts.P10, P11, P14 and P15 and to drop all proceedings initiated against the petitioner in pursuance of Exts.P10 and P11. 2. The petitioner states that he entered service in July, 1996. While working as Professor, he was appointed to exercise the powers and perform the duties of Vice Chancellor, Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies (KUFOS) in addition to his normal duties, as per Ext.P1 Notification dated 05.07.2023. 3. The petitioner states that while he was working as Associate Professor (Horticulture), he was appointed as Principal Investigator of the project named “Establishment of High-tech Seed Testing Facility in Kerala”. When there was shortage of funds for payment of wages to contractual staff during the financial year 2018-2019, the petitioner submitted a request before the Comptroller of the University to re-appropriate an amount of Rs.1 lakh from the Head “Operational Cost”, to meet expenditure towards wages of contractual staff. The Head of the Department recommended the request. The Comptroller of the University, as per Ext.P8, authorised such re-appropriation and accorded permission as per Ext.P8. 4. On 04.05.2023, the petitioner received Ext.P10 e-mail stating that an Inquiry Committee has been constituted to conduct a detailed inquiry on charges levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner was required to appear before the Inquiry Committee on 09.05.2023. On 09.05.2023, the petitioner was required to explain about the re- appropriation of funds in the year 2018. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted Ext.P12 statement. 5. After about six months, the petitioner was served with Ext.P14 letter dated 23.11.2023 requesting the petitioner to offer his remarks on Ext.P15 inquiry report dated 16.08.2023. Ext.P15 report revealed that the Inquiry Committee had heard seven persons on different dates, in person and through videoconferencing and had elicited statements and documents from them. Those statements were obtained behind the back of the petitioner. The motive behind Ext.P15 report is to impose major punishment on the petitioner. 6. The petitioner states that he is an aspirant to the post of Director of Research under the 1 st respondent- University. The 4 th respondent, who is also an aspirant for the post, masterminded Ext.P15 report. Ext.P15 report is therefore liable to be set aside along with Ext.P14 notice. 7. 6. The petitioner states that he is an aspirant to the post of Director of Research under the 1 st respondent- University. The 4 th respondent, who is also an aspirant for the post, masterminded Ext.P15 report. Ext.P15 report is therefore liable to be set aside along with Ext.P14 notice. 7. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the Joint Registrar (Administration) has no authority to constitute an Inquiry Committee. The petitioner, at no point of time, was issued with memorandum of charges or statement of allegations in writing. One of the members of the Inquiry Committee has given a dissenting note stating that the petitioner may not be responsible for the so-called forgery. Evidence was collected from seven officials, behind the back of the petitioner. The proceedings which culminated in Ext.P14 report is vitiated by malafides. 8. Respondents 1 to 3 contested the writ petition filing counter affidavit. Respondents 1 to 3 contended that as per the University Act and Statutes, the Comptroller is the statutory authority empowered to issue financial sanction. Initially, the financial sanction for the above said project for the financial year 2017-2018 had only been issued for a sum of Rs.2.36 lakhs as per order dated 17.02.2018, since there was no sufficient release of funds for the project from the Government. The targetted expenditure could not be met with that fund as it was insufficient. Later, on availing sufficient fund from the Government and as there exists an administrative and technical sanction for a total sum of Rs.5 lakhs as per Ext.P5, the Comptroller had issued a financial sanction by authorising an additional sum of Rs.10 lakhs based on the request of the Professor & Head, Department of Olericulture, College of Horticulture, Vellanikkara as per letter dated 08.03.2018. Hence, the averments of the petitioner that the Comptroller of the University had modified the budget allocation for the project without any recommendation from the Director of Research or any letter of request from Department of Vegetable Science, is opposed to facts. 9. Ext.P5 order had been issued by the Comptroller as per request of the petitioner who was the Principal Investigator of the project. There are two letters with similar number and date. The first letter (Ext.P7) is seen recommended and forwarded with signature and seal of Director of Research. In the second letter (Ext.P13), there is no signature and seal of the Director of Research. There are two letters with similar number and date. The first letter (Ext.P7) is seen recommended and forwarded with signature and seal of Director of Research. In the second letter (Ext.P13), there is no signature and seal of the Director of Research. In Ext.P13, there is no signature and seal of the Director of Research. The Director of Research informed the Comptroller that the recommendation was issued without the concurrence of the Director of Research. Later, the Director of Research, as per the note dated 15.11.2018 submitted to the Vice Chancellor of the University, informed that Ext.P5 re-appropriation order was issued without the AS&TS of Director of Research and doubted the genuineness of signature and seal of the Director of Research in Ext.P7 and Ext.P13 letters having same number and date addressed to the Comptroller. The Comptroller, as per note dated 01.12.2018 to the Vice Chancellor, recommended an inquiry on the issue and necessary action against those responsible. The Vice Chancellor ordered an inquiry on the issue by a three member Committee. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 11. As regards the proceedings of the Inquiry Committee, it is evident from the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 3 that the Committee has been constituted only for conducting a preliminary inquiry. When a preliminary inquiry is conducted, delinquent officers need not be given opportunity to participate in such inquiry or to adduce evidence. Therefore, the contentions of the petitioner as regards violation of the principles of natural justice will not hold good to impugn Ext.P14. 12. The University Statutes provide for issuance of memorandum of charge-sheets and statements of allegations to a delinquent employee. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be imposed with any punishment on the basis of a preliminary inquiry report. If the petitioner is to be proceeded against and imposed with any minor or major penalty, then indeed a confronted inquiry giving opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence and cross-examine prosecution witnesses, will have to be conducted. The petitioner cannot have any legal grievance in that regard, at this stage of preliminary enquiry. 13. If the petitioner is to be proceeded against and imposed with any minor or major penalty, then indeed a confronted inquiry giving opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence and cross-examine prosecution witnesses, will have to be conducted. The petitioner cannot have any legal grievance in that regard, at this stage of preliminary enquiry. 13. The petitioner would contend that one of the members of the Inquiry Committee had submitted Ext.P16 dissenting note dated 22.08.2023 categorically holding that the petitioner is not responsible for the so-called forgery as the petitioner had denied his signature in the document. The said dissenting members has also held that the petitioner may not have received any direct benefit from the alleged misconduct, because appropriation of the funds was for payment of wages to the project staff. Though the finding of the said dissenting member may have substantial force, that alone cannot be a reason to quash the inquiry report or to hold that a departmental enquiry is unwarranted, especially when the allegation is of forgery of document. 14. Ext.P14 impugned by the petitioner is only a show-cause notice. This Court will not be justified in interfering with the proceedings initiated by the respondents at the stage of show-cause notice. The petitioner has the right to reply to the show-cause notice and to require the respondents to drop the disciplinary proceedings against him. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that no interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the proceedings initiated by the respondents, at this stage. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.