logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 Ker HC 065 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Kerala
Case No : WP(C) No. 38608 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. NAGARESH
Parties : The Manager Sree Narayana Colleges, Kollam Versus Dr. P.G. Bhavyasree & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: A.N. Rajan Babu, P. Gopalakrishnan (Mva), A.R. Easwar Lal, Advocates. For the Respondents: Dr. P.G. Bhavyasree (Party-In-Person), Neeraj Narayan, G. Sinil Kumar, Advocates.
Date of Judgment : 14-01-2026
Head Note :-
Kerala University Act, 1974 - Section 60 -

Comparative Citation:
2026 KER 2415,
Judgment :-

1. The petitioner, who is Manager of Sree Narayana Colleges, seeks to set aside Exts.P3 and P4 and to declare that Ext.P2 appeal is not maintainable under Section 60 of the Kerala University Act, 1974.

2. The 1st respondent was Assistant Professor in Physics in Sree Narayana College, Chathannur. A charge memo dated 25.03.2024 was served on the 1st respondent alleging misappropriation of PTA fund, forgery of Attendance Register, non-cooperation in NACC Accreditation Coordination Program, etc. A retired Additional District Judge was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Pending disciplinary proceedings, the 1st respondent was suspended as per order dated 18.04.2024.

3. As the enquiry could not be completed within three months, the Manager requested the Vice Chancellor to extend the time to conduct enquiry for a further period of three months. The 1st respondent filed University Appeal No.3/2024 to set aside memo of charges. The Tribunal stayed the memo of charges. The 1st respondent thereafter filed IA No.3/2024 in UA No.3/2024 seeking to take contempt action against the petitioner. The petitioner was thereupon served Ext.P4 order requiring to show-cause.

4. Challenging Exts.P2 to P4 appeals, the petitioner filed CRP No.1/2024 before this Court. By Ext.P5 order, a Division Bench of this Court disposed of the CRP observing that findings in Exts.P3 and P4 are only a prima facie view and can be subject to adjudication. This Court directed the Appellate Tribunal that the objections of the petitioner be considered in accordance with law.

5. The 1st respondent filed IA No.4/2024 in UA No.3/2024 against the petitioner and the 2nd respondent claiming compensation for an amount of ₹50 lakhs on account of mental trauma, suffering, pain, financial loss, defamation, etc. with 18% interest. The claim against the 2nd respondent was on an allegation of sexual harassment. Ext.P8 IA is not maintainable, contends the petitioner.

6. The University Appellate Tribunal, without hearing the maintainability of appeal as a preliminary issue, proceeded with trial of Ext.P8 IA No.4/2024 for compensation and directed the 1st respondent to file chief affidavit. The petitioner states that Ext.P2 appeal No.3/2024, Ext.P3 order and Ext.P4 order issuing notice on an application for compensation and penalty, are not maintainable before the Tribunal. Exts.P2 to P4 are liable to be set aside.

7. The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit. The charge memo issued to the 1st respondent is arising out of malice and vengeance, contended the 1st respondent. Disciplinary proceedings commence only when a charge memo is issued. The suspension order imposed on the 1st respondent before issuing charge memo is violative of Section 60(2) of the Kerala University Act. The petitioner has not completed the disciplinary proceedings within three months.

8. As per Section 60(7) of the Kerala University Act, any Teacher aggrieved by an order passed in any disciplinary proceedings taken against him may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. The appeal filed by the 1st respondent is therefore maintainable. The petitioner is trying to delay the proceedings before the Tribunal. The writ petition is therefore without any merit, contended the 1st respondent.

9. The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit. The 2nd respondent submitted that IA No.4/2024 in UA No.3/2024 is not maintainable before the Appellate Tribunal under the University Act, which has no jurisdiction to decide compensation.  The Tribunal is proceeding without considering the maintainability of Ext.P2 appeal.

10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. I have also heard the 1st respondent in person.

11. The 1st respondent is working as Assistant Professor. Ext.P1 charge memo was issued on the 1st respondent alleging misappropriation of PTA fund, forgery of Attendance Register, non-cooperation in NACC Accreditation Coordination Program, etc. The charge memo was issued on 25.03.2024. The 1st respondent was suspended as per order dated 18.04.2024. In view of Section 60(4) of the Act, the disciplinary proceedings are to be completed within three months. The Manager has requested the Vice Chancellor to enlarge the time for completion of disciplinary proceedings.

12. The 1st respondent had earlier filed a complaint against the 2nd respondent alleging that she was sexually harassed by the 2nd respondent in a council meeting held on 21.08.2023. An FIR was also lodged.  The complaints against the 2nd respondent were enquired. The enquiry revealed that there is no proof of sexual harassment.

13. The 1st respondent has filed Appeal No.3/2024 before the Kerala University Appellate Tribunal to set aside memo of charges. The Tribunal passed Ext.P3 order dated 12.07.2024 in IA No.2/2024 staying the order of suspension and disciplinary proceedings against the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent filed IA No.3/2024 seeking to initiate contempt of court proceedings against the petitioner. The Tribunal issued Ext.P4 order on the petitioner to show- cause why proceedings should not be initiated against the petitioner.

14. The 1st respondent filed Ext.P8 IA No.4/2024 in Appeal No.3/2024 against the petitioner and the 2nd respondent claiming compensation for an amount of ₹50 lakhs on account of mental trauma and also an amount of ₹50,000/- as penalty from the 2nd respondent. The petitioner would urge that IA No.4/2024 is not maintainable under Section 60(7) of the Kerala University Act, 1974.

15. Considering the afore facts and circumstances, I am of the view that since the issues are pending consideration before the Appellate Tribunal, a decision can be taken by the Tribunal on all the legal aspects, at least at the first instance.

16. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the following directions:

                  (i) The petitioner is directed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the 1st respondent as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months.

                  (ii) If the disciplinary proceedings against the 1st respondent are not completed within the aforesaid three months period, the suspension against the 1st respondent shall be revoked and the 1st respondent shall be permitted to resume duties, without prejudice to completion of the disciplinary proceedings.

                  (iii) The Kerala University Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram shall pass final orders on Ext.P2 appeal within a period of four months taking note of Ext.P12 judgment in FAO No.100/2024.

                  (iv) All other legal questions raised in the writ petition are left open.
 
  CDJLawJournal