Bindhu George v. The Manager, Aquinas College, Edakochin, Cochin; Mahatma Gandhi University; Vice Chancellor, Mahatma Gandhi University; Bridgit Jeeji C.J. (Drawing and Disbursing Officer)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.** **WEDNESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 18TH BHADRA, 1942** ## **WA.No.1147 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 13641/2020(E) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 21/8/2020** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **DR.BINDHU GEORGE AGED 52 YEARS HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS (UNDER ORDER OF SUSPENSION), ACQUINAS COLLEGE, EDAKOCHI, COCHIN - 682 010.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE MANAGER, AQUINAS COLLEGE EDACOCHIN, COCHIN - 682010.** - **2 THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM - 686 560.** - **3 THE VICE CHANCELLOR MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM - 686 560.** - **4 MRS.BRIDGIT JEEJI C.J. DRAWING AND DISBURSING OFFICER, AQUINAS COLLEGE, EDACOCHIN, COCHIN - 682010.** **R2 & R3 BY SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY SRI. ABRAHAM VAKKANAL-SR. R1 & R4** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-08-2020, THE COURT ON 09-09-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WA No.1147/2020 -:2:- ## **J U D G M E N T** Dated this the 9[th] day of September, 2020 ## _**Shaffique, J.**_ The petitioner in WP(C) No.13641/2020 has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to finalise the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner within a period of one month. It was further observed that if the petitioner co-operates and the disciplinary proceedings are not finalised within the stipulated time, she shall be reinstated. 2. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner/appellant challenging an order of suspension dated 2/7/2020. While challenging the order of suspension, petitioner has also sought for a declaration that the 4[th] respondent is not qualified and eligible to continue either as the Principal-in-charge or the Drawing and Disbursing Officer. The contention urged by the petitioner was that the Manager was not competent to issue an order of suspension. The power of suspension in terms of S.63 of WA No.1147/2020 -:3:- the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 is on the educational agency which cannot be delegated to the Manager. It is further contended that the allegations raised in a complaint against the petitioner which was received under cover of letter dated 6/3/2020 (Ext.P1) was closed after receiving the explanation of the petitioner as evident from Ext.P4 dated 25/5/2020 of the Manager. Once the incident had been closed, merely for the reason that the petitioner had given Ext.P5 letter dated 22/6/2020 to recall the stigmatic letter issued to her, the Manager was not justified in suspending the petitioner as per Ext.P6 order dated 2/7/2020. Yet another contention that was urged was that petitioner was the senior-most teacher eligible to be appointed as Principal and it is overlooking her seniority that the 4[th] respondent was appointed as Principal-in-charge and also the Drawing and Disbursing Officer. 3. Learned Single Judge after having considered the respective contentions came to a finding that the Manager is entitled to exercise such powers and discharge such duties as may be delegated to him by the Unitary management or the Corporate management in terms of S.56(4) of the Act and Ext.R1(d) reflects the powers which have been delegated to the WA No.1147/2020 -:4:- Manager. It is specifically indicated in Ext.R1(d) that the Manager has been invested with all the powers of the educational agency as per the University Statutes and Act. It was therefore found that the power of the educational agency u/s 63 of the Act which relates to the disciplinary powers of educational agency over teachers of private colleges has also been delegated. Apparently, the findings of the learned Single Judge with regard to the competence of the Manager to issue the order of suspension based on delegated authority cannot be doubted, and hence we do not intend to interfere with the said finding. 4. Yet another contention urged was that petitioner being the senior-most Professor ought to have been appointed as Principal-in-charge and Drawing and Disbursing Officer. According to the management, no steps had been taken for appointing a Principal and that apart, the 4[th] respondent is the senior-most teacher. The 4[th] respondent has been made the Principal-incharge and Drawing and Disbursing Officer as a working arrangement, in the absence of regular Principal. We do not think it necessary to go into the validity of the working arrangement made by the management. It is made clear by the respondent that 4[th] respondent has not been made the Principal. Under such WA No.1147/2020 -:5:- circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the working arrangement made by the management in that regard. 5. The only other question that is required to be considered is whether the order of suspension was proper or not. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a few judgments of the Apex Court and this Court. 6. In _**Captain M. Paul Anthony. v. Bharat Gold Mines**_ _**Ltd. and Another**_ [(1999) 3 SCC 679], the Apex Court made a reference to “suspension syndrome”. It is _inter alia_ observed that it is the irritability of the employer rather than the employee's trivial lapse which often results in suspension. In _**A.K.Veeramani**_ _**v. State of Kerala**_ (1974 KLT 630), a Division Bench of this Court while considering the Police Departmental Enquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1958 (Kerala) observed that an order of suspension should be passed only if it is necessary or desirable. Such necessity or desirability will arise when charges against a servant are of a serious nature and keeping him in service will not be conducive to discipline or the maintaining of the efficiency or the honesty of the administration. In other words, there must be serious allegations of misconduct and the authority must be satisfied that it is necessary or at least desirable to keep a WA No.1147/2020 -:6:- member of a service under suspension. In _**O.P. Gupta v. Union of India**_ [(1987) 4 SCC 328], the Apex Court held that unless the departmental enquiry is concluded within a reasonable time, an order of suspension affects the Government servant injuriously. That apart, during the period of suspension, the employee is only paid a subsistence allowance which has an undeniable penal significance. In _**Muhammed v. State of Kerala**_ (1997 (2) KLT 394), a learned Single Judge of this Court held that gravity of the alleged misconduct of the nature of allegations imputed to the delinquent employee are to be considered while issuing an order of suspension and that suspension cannot be ordered in a routine manner. The stigma that attaches to an officer under suspension cannot be whisked away on the legalistic plea that it is no punishment. 7. There cannot be any quarrel on the legal proposition available in the matter. The question to be considered is whether on the particular facts of the case, there was necessity for keeping the petitioner under suspension. Ext.P1 discloses that a complaint was received by the Manager from Mr.Vijo M.Joy wherein he had alleged that, on 28/2/2020, the petitioner abused him and his parents in the presence of Principal-in-charge. She WA No.1147/2020 -:7:- also threatened him that she will disclose that he was having illicit relationship with another person in office. Ext.P2 is the reply given by the petitioner denying the same and she contended that there was no such occasion for Mr.Vijo M.Joy to make such a complaint. She further stated that Mr.Vijo M.Joy had abused her using unparliamentary words and she had given a complaint to the Manager on 5/3/2020. The Manager after having considered the complaint of Mr.Vijo M.Joy and other teachers and after obtaining a report from the Principal-in-charge, having observed that there had been such previous complaints against the petitioner, disapproved her impolite ways and cautioned her that if she does not behave with respect to the college authorities and be polite to her fellow teachers, non teaching staff and students in future, the management will be forced to take serious disciplinary action. However, the correspondence in that regard was closed and the Manager did not feel it necessary to take any further action. Dissatisfied with the closure of the complaint, petitioner sent a letter dated 22/6/2020 _inter alia_ stating that the finding in the letter dated 25/5/2020 of the Manager casts a stigma on her and therefore, she requested the Manager to recall the stigmatic reference. It is pursuant to the above letter that the WA No.1147/2020 -:8:- Manager had issued the order of suspension dated 2/7/2020 proposing disciplinary action. 8. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, they have produced the memo of charges dated 30/7/2020 as Ext.R1(a). Six specific charges had been mentioned in the memo of charges. The statement of allegations has also been served on the petitioner. Going by the memo of charges, we do not think that we should be called upon to decide on the correctness or otherwise of the memo of charges. But the allegations raised are not trivial. This Court can interfere against an order of suspension only if the order of suspension was without any basis or as held by this Court in _**A.K.Veeramani's case**_ (supra), that the order of suspension should be necessary or desirable. The institution in question is a College and the complainant as well as the petitioner are members of the faculty. Every management would prefer to have their teachers behaving in a proper manner without causing any blemish to the management or the institution. If any teacher behaves improperly, it will affect the student community and will not be conducive for the management to retain such teachers. Initially the management thought it fit to close the matter. But when the teacher herself WA No.1147/2020 -:9:- had requested for removal of the stigma, the management thought it necessary to conduct an enquiry into the allegations, the correctness of which could be decided only when the disciplinary proceedings are finalised. The learned Single Judge had already directed the management to complete the enquiry within a specified time. 9. The learned senior counsel appearing for the Management, while supporting the judgment of the learned single Judge would submit that if the petitioner/appellant cooperates with them, the enquiry could be completed within the stipulated time. It is argued that the allegations in the memo of charges are very serious. The Manager initially decided to close the matter to avoid any unnecessary confrontation among the teachers. Since necessary safeguards had already been issued by the learned Single Judge, there is no reason to interfere with the said directions. 10. Though the Manager had initially decided not to precipitate the complaint given by another teacher, it is when the petitioner had requested the Manager to withdraw the stigmatic references against her, that the order of suspension has been issued, which was followed by a memo of charges. We do not WA No.1147/2020 -:10:- think that the allegations in the memo of charges are trivial, and when the order of suspension has been issued, apparently with an intention to maintain discipline among the teachers, staff and students, we will not be justified in interfering with such an order. That apart, when sufficient safeguards have already been made by the learned single Judge and direction had been issued to complete the enquiry within a time frame, interference against the order of suspension is unwarranted. The Writ Appeal is hence dismissed. **SD/-** **A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE Sd/GOPINATH P.** Rp True Copy **JUDGE** PS to Judge