Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 675 (KER)

D. rejikumar S/o T. u. Devasia v. State Of Kerala

2025-03-20

N.NAGARESH

body2025
JUDGMENT : (N. NAGARESH, J.) The petitioner, who is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Malayalam in the 4 th respondent-College, has approached this Court seeking to quash Exts.P4, P5, P8 and P11 and to direct respondents 3 and 4 to reinstate the petitioner and disburse all consequential benefits to him. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor on 21.02.2011. A complaint was preferred by a student alleging harassment by the petitioner. An Internal Complaints Committee was constituted by the College. The petitioner appeared before the ICC and submitted that he has not caused any harassment to the student and that his action was only misunderstood by the student. However, the petitioner offered his apology over the incident. 3. Consequently, the ICC dropped all the proceedings as the student herself did not want to pursue the compliant. The petitioner states that a complaint was subsequently submitted by the student at the instance of certain Teachers. Thereupon, the Principal asked the petitioner to submit yet another apology letter. The petitioner, therefore, submitted Ext.P2. The entire issue relating to the complaint thus came to an end and the ICC closed their proceedings in accordance with the UGC Regulations, contends the petitioner. 4. Certain persons again submitted complaints before various statutory authorities against the petitioner. The MG University thereupon constituted an Enquiry Committee and conducted an enquiry. The petitioner was not given notice of enquiry. A copy of the complaint was not served on the petitioner. However, the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Committee. Thereafter, a report was submitted stating that the student was satisfied with the proceedings of the ICC and also that she is not intending to proceed with the complaint further. Ext.P3 is the order of the University. The Enquiry Committee of the University found against one teacher namely Satish Babu. 5. To the surprise and predicament of the petitioner, he was suspended from service as per Ext.P4 order dated 17.07.2023. The suspension was based on a direction given by the Department of Higher Education recommending major disciplinary action against the petitioner. The petitioner was served with Ext.P5 charge memo dated 31.07.2023. The enquiring authority relied on several documents for suspending the petitioner. However, the petitioner was not provided with copies of the said documents. Political consideration and extraneous influence affected the enquiry. 6. The petitioner was served with Ext.P5 charge memo dated 31.07.2023. The enquiring authority relied on several documents for suspending the petitioner. However, the petitioner was not provided with copies of the said documents. Political consideration and extraneous influence affected the enquiry. 6. As per the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, once charge memo is issued, time should be granted to the employee to submit explanation. Only if the explanation is not proper, an enquiry can be proceeded with. In this case, even before considering the reply of the petitioner an Enquiry Officer was appointed. 7. The petitioner states that the enquiry proceedings were an eye wash. The petitioner was not given opportunity to cross examine the witnesses who gave statement against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry in an arbitrary and irrational manner. Ultimately, Ext.P8 preliminary Enquiry Report dated 14.12.2023 was submitted. Curiously, the Enquiry Officer himself recommended that a particular penalty be imposed on the petitioner . The petitioner would submit that the Enquiry Officer has exceeded his jurisdiction. 8. Subsequently, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P9 notice requiring the petitioner to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on the basis of the Enquiry Report. The petitioner reiterated that the entire proceedings are vitiated by malafide and are contrary to the established legal practices. The petitioner submitted Ext.P10 reply dated 05.01.2024 to the notice. However, ultimately, the Manager passed Ext.P11 order imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement on the petitioner. 9. The petitioner states that the malafide in the proceedings are writ large. Even before the petitioner submitted his reply to the charge memo, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. Rather unusually, the Enquiry Officer himself recommended the penalty to be imposed on the petitioner. The incident happened in the year 2019. The compulsory retirement was imposed on the petitioner in the year 2024. There is no subjective satisfaction of the employer in the conclusions arrived at. 10. The petitioner further submitted that the petitioner was not provided with subsistence allowance which has adversely affected the petitioner. Due to non payment of subsistence allowance promptly, the petitioner could not defend the enquiry effectively. 11. The petitioner further submitted that the enquiry proceedings are in gross violation of Section 63(3) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act. 10. The petitioner further submitted that the petitioner was not provided with subsistence allowance which has adversely affected the petitioner. Due to non payment of subsistence allowance promptly, the petitioner could not defend the enquiry effectively. 11. The petitioner further submitted that the enquiry proceedings are in gross violation of Section 63(3) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act. The entire enquiry proceedings are vitiated by gross violation of the statutory provisions and the principles of natural justice, urged the petitioner. 12. The 4 th respondent entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The 4 th respondent submitted that a young girl student of 20 years was intentionally insulted, physically abused, mentally tortured and sexually harassed by a Teacher of the College. The Internal Complaints Committee constituted by the College conducted an enquiry. They were requested to settle the issue between the parties. 13. The University Grant Commission also received a complaint wherein it was stated that the victim girl was forced to enter into settlement and hence the UGC issued a communication dated 08.12.2020 directing the 5 th respondent- Principal to conduct an enquiry and file a report. The University accordingly issued order dated 04.02.2021 and formed a Committee of Syndicate members to report the same. The Committee found that the ICC report submitted to the MG University does not contain reconciliation of report. The report also noted that the petitioner had given an apology before the ICC as against the allegation made against him by the victim. 14. The Department of Higher Education in Kerala also intervened in the matter when they received complaints. Considering the gravity of the allegations made by the victim, the Department directed the 4 th respondent to take disciplinary action against the petitioner. The Enquiry Committee came to a conclusion that the complaints submitted by the girl student is genuine. The petitioner duly participated in the disciplinary proceedings. In the meanwhile, the Government under Section 64(1) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act directed the management to hold disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. 15. The petitioner was suspended from service pending enquiry as per Ext.P4 order dated 17.07.2023. A charge memo was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner was granted opportunity to submit reply to the charges. The 4 th respondent submitted that the complaint and documents were shared with the petitioner by the 5 th respondent-college. 15. The petitioner was suspended from service pending enquiry as per Ext.P4 order dated 17.07.2023. A charge memo was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner was granted opportunity to submit reply to the charges. The 4 th respondent submitted that the complaint and documents were shared with the petitioner by the 5 th respondent-college. Therefore, the allegation that copies of documents were not served on the petitioner cannot stand. 16. No prejudice is shown to the petitioner in the enquiry. Reply given by the petitioner was duly considered. The 4 th respondent further submitted that the petitioner has an efficacious alternate remedy before the University Tribunal. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed for availability of alternate remedy. 17. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the 4 th respondent and also the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3. 18. A complaint was given by a girl student of the College against the petitioner. The complaint was looked into by the ICC in accordance with UGC Regulations. The proceedings of the ICC were closed by the ICC. Again certain other persons preferred complaints against the petitioner before various forums. Consequently, the university constituted an Enquiry Committee to conduct enquiry into the allegations. The pleadings would indicate that the Enquiry Committee came to the College on 15.06.2021. 19. The Enquiry Committee constituted by the University submitted a report stating that the complainant student has never submitted any complaint and the complainant is satisfied by the proceedings of the ICC. However, based on the complaint given, an enquiry was conducted by the 3 rd respondent-Deputy Director of Collegiate Education. The petitioner was put under suspension on 17.07.2023. After the enquiry, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. After considering Ext.P10 reply, the petitioner has been imposed with the penalty compulsory retirement as per Ext.P11 order dated 15.01.2024. 20. In Ext.P11, the Corporate Manager noted that Principal himself had called him and showed the letter of complaint of the student and discussed the matter with him seriously. He was called by the ICC, where also the letter was shown and enquired into. The complainant never sought for a copy of the complaint. The further grievance of the petitioner is that he was not given an opportunity to defend the enquiry effectively. Ext.P8 is preliminary Enquiry Report. He was called by the ICC, where also the letter was shown and enquired into. The complainant never sought for a copy of the complaint. The further grievance of the petitioner is that he was not given an opportunity to defend the enquiry effectively. Ext.P8 is preliminary Enquiry Report. Ext.P8 Enquiry Report would show that the petitioner was issued with notice of enquiry. The statement of the petitioner was recorded. Witnesses were examined. 21. After considering the statements made by the petitioner and the witnesses, the Enquiry Officer came to a conclusion that the alleged incident had happened. The Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the suspension imposed and the subsequent proceedings against the petitioner are justified. The Enquiry Officer recommended that the petitioner be removed from service. It is seen from the pleadings that Ext.P9 notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted Ext.P10 reply. It is after considering Ext.P10 reply that Ext.P11 order has been passed by the Corporate Manager. 22. It is evident from the pleadings that the petitioner has given apology more than once. Ext.P8 preliminary Enquiry Report would indicate that there were sufficient materials to come to a conclusion of the guilt. The petitioner was extended with opportunity to defend the proceedings. The pleadings do not show that the petitioner had sought opportunity to cross examine witnesses or that opportunity to cross examine was declined inspite of the petitioner's request. The penalty was imposed after giving a further opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 23. The mere fact that the incident occurred in the year 2019 and the enquiry resulting in the removal started only in the year 2023 cannot be a reason to interfere with departmental proceedings. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature, especially taking into consideration the fact that it is coming from a girl student. 24. The fact that an Enquiry Officer was appointed before considering the reply to charges, will not vitiate the enquiry. Recommendation by the Enquiry Officer to impose a particular penalty, will also not vitiate the Enquiry Report. Considering all the afore facts, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is hence dismissed.