logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 Ker HC 192 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Kerala
Case No : WP(C) No. 39589 of 2024
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. NAGARESH
Parties : Dr. J. Shamnad Versus The Adminsitrator Iqbal College Trust, Thiruvananthapuram & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: M.S. Radhakrishnan Nair, Elizebath George, C.B. Sathy, Advocates. For the Respondents: M. Sreekumar, Advocate, Thomas Abraham, SC.
Date of Judgment : 06-02-2026
Head Note :-
Kerala University Act - Section 60(2) -

Comparative Citation:
2026 KER 10230,
Judgment :-

1. The petitioner, who is working as Assistant Professor in Botany in the Iqbal College, Peringamala, seeks to declare that the 1st respondent-Administrator is not entitled to continue any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner after 28.07.2024 in view of Ext.P4 and hence Exts.P6 and P10 are illegal.

2. The petitioner states that he was appointed in the College on 18.06.2020. The petitioner detected malpractices in examination by three students. When enquiry was started against the students, certain staff members turned against the petitioner. The petitioner was suspended as per Ext.P1 order dated 20.02.2024. A Teacher cannot be kept under suspension by the educational agency except when disciplinary proceedings are initiated in view of Section 60(2) of the Kerala University Act. No disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner.

3. A charge memo was issued only on 28.02.2024 after the suspension. Hence, Ext.P1 is illegal. Enquiry proceedings are to be completed within three months as per Section 60(4). The proceedings were not concluded within three months and hence the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation dated 20.05.2024 requesting to revoke the suspension. The 1st respondent, on the other hand, submitted a request before the 3rd respondent seeking extension of period for completing the enquiry. The 3rd respondent issued Ext.P4 order dated 29.06.2024 directing to complete the whole procedure within one month.

4. The petitioner states that the proceedings were not completed within one month and therefore further proceedings are illegal and without any jurisdiction. The 1st respondent is debarred from proceeding ahead with the disciplinary action. The petitioner was reinstated in service as per order dated 03.08.2024 as per Ext.P5.

5. On receipt of enquiry report, the 1st respondent issued a show-cause notice proposing to withhold two increments with cumulative effect as per Ext.P6 proceeding dated 23.09.2024. The petitioner submitted Ext.P7 reply. The petitioner states that the term of members of the Trust Board and Executive Committee of the College has already expired. The 1st respondent was appointed as Administrator. The Administrator is appointed as a stopgap arrangement. He cannot go ahead with the disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner therefore seeks to set aside Exts.P6 and P10.

6. The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit. The 1st respondent stated that a Scheme suit in respect of the College Trust was decreed on 13.04.2007 and was modified on 21.08.2012 and a Scheme was finalised.  The Trust is functioning as per the Scheme settled by the Court. The term of the then existing Board expired on 21.05.2022. hence, the District Court appointed the 1st respondent as Administrator. The competency of the 1st respondent to continue as Administrator was the subject matter in W.P.(C) No.2278/2024. This Court, by judgment dated 23.09.2024, upheld the competency of the 1st respondent. There is no rule mandating that suspension can be made only after issue of charge memo. The non-completion of enquiry within the stipulated time will not result in discharge or acquitted of the accused. The writ petition is without any merit and it is liable to be dismissed, contended the 1st respondent.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3.

8. The petitioner is working as Assistant Professor in the Iqubal College Trust, presently managed by the 1st respondent-Administrator. The petitioner was suspended on 20.02.2024 as per Ext.P1 order. Ext.P2 memo of charges was issued on the petitioner on 27.02.2024. As per Section 60(4) of the Kerala University Act, disciplinary proceedings shold be completed within three months or within such period allowed by the Vice Chancellor.

9. The Vice Chancellor extended the period for completing the enquiry for one month from 29.06.2024. The 1st respondent could not complete the enquiry within the said period. The suspension was hence revoked as per Ext.P5 order dated 03.08.2024. Thereafter, the enquiry was concluded passing Ext.P10 order dated 28.10.2024 imposing on the petitioner the penalty of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. Exts.P6 and P10 orders are under challenge.

10. The prime contention of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent being an Administrator has no authority to proceed with a disciplinary enquiry and conclude the same, since he is not the employer and he is holding the position of Administrator on adhoc basis. The suspension imposed on the petitioner before issuing charge sheet is illegal as per Section 60(2) of the Kerala University Act. As the disciplinary proceeding could not be completed and as final orders could not be passed even within the extended time permitted by the Vice Chancellor, the punishment imposed is also illegal, contends the petitioner.

11. As regards the competency of the 1st respondent to act as a Disciplinary Authority, it has to be noted that the 1st respondent is not an Administrator appointed by the Trust or by the Government as per any executive order. The 1st respondent has been appointed as Administrator by the order of a competent civil court. When the court appoints an Administrator in the place of a Board of Trust / Managing Committee, such Administrator will be having all powers exercised by the Trust / Managing Committee, as long as the court which appointed the Administrator does not curtail his powers in any manner. No such court imposed restriction which is brought to the notice of this Court. The argument based on competency of the 1st respondent is therefore rejected.

12. The further contention of the petitioner is that a suspension could not have been made before issuance of charge memo in view of Section 60(2) of the Kerala University Act. In this case, the suspension was ordered on 20.02.2024 and charge sheet was issued within one week, on 27.02.2024. Therefore, the petitioner cannot challenge the disciplinary proceedings holding that suspension order was passed before issuing charge memo. In this case, it is evident that suspension order was passed in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings commenced by issuance of charge sheet within one week. The disciplinary proceedings therefore cannot be said to be vitiated on that ground.

13. The further contention of the petitioner is that since the disciplinary proceeding was not completed within the stipulated time, the punishment imposed is illegal. The disciplinary proceedings commenced on 27.02.2024 by issuance of a charge memo. The disciplinary proceedings should have been completed within three months or within such further period as allowed by the Vice Chancellor. The Vice Chancellor extended the period for completion of disciplinary proceedings till 28.07.2024. The enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report on 12.09.2024 and the punishment was imposed on 28.10.2024. It is to be noted that in the meanwhile the suspension imposed on the petitioner was revoked and he was reinstated in service as per order dated 03.08.2024. Delay in completion of the disciplinary proceedings by itself will not absolve the petitioner from punishment if the misconducts are proved.

                  In the afore facts of the case, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is hence dismissed.
 
  CDJLawJournal