Dr. N. Chandramohanakumar v. Cochin University of Science and Technology and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC** **WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/6TH ASHADHA 1934** ## **WP(C).No. 8397 of 2012 (Y) --------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** ## **--------------------------** **DR. N. CHANDRAMOHANAKUMAR,S/O THE LATE NARAYANAN NAIR, AGED 57 YEARS, PROFESSOR AND HEAD, DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL OCEANOGRAPHY (UNDER ORDERS OF SUSPENSION),COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, LAKESIDE CAMPUS, FORESHORE ROAD, KOCHI-682 016, RESIDING AT 'VASUDEVAM', ADAYATH LANE, ELAMAKKARA, KOCHI- 682 026.** **BY SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN,SENIOR ADVS. SMT.K.RADHAMANI AMMA SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN (THYKOODAM) SRI.K.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR** **RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------** **1. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, THRIKKAKARA, KOCHI-682 022.** **2. SYNDICATE OF THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN-THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, THRIKKAKARA, KOCHI-682 022.** **3. FINANCE INSPECTION WING, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** ## **4. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION (B) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **R1 & R2 BY SRI. M.PATHROSE MATTHAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV. SRI.P.M.A.KALAM,SC,COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY R3 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.P.SAJID** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** **WP(C)NO.8397/2012** **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. AD.1/27/2004 DATED 24-07-2008 OF THE IST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. AD.A1/27/2004 DATED 22-10-2011 OF THE IST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF THE CHARGE TRANSFER CERTIFICATE (CTC) DATED 01-03-2011.** - **EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. AD. D1/41930/RH/2000 DATED 09-03-2011 OF THE IST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF THE 577TH MEETING OF THE SYNDICATE HELD ON 28.12.2011 OF THE IST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P6: COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF THE 580TH MEETING OF THE SYNDICATE HELD ON 15-3-2012 OF THE IST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P7: COPY OF THE REPORT FORWARDED ALONGWITH GOVERNMENT LETTER NO. 8207/B2/11/H.EDN DATED 14-03-2012 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P8: COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE SUB COMMITTEE OF THE SYNDICATE.** - **EXHIBIT P9: COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE SUB COMMITTEE DR. M. BHASI (APPENDX 8).** - **EXHIBIT P10: COPY OF THE ORDER U.O.NO.AD. D2/14987/85 DATED 29-03-2012 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P11: COPY OF THE CIR-MEMO NO.42765/RULES-3/62/FIN DATED 15/09/1962 GOVERNMENT DECISION.** - **EXHIBIT P12: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.AD.D3/66/92/(II)VOL.IV DATED 10/03/2011 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P13: COPY OF THE NOTE TO SYNDICATE PERTAINING TO ITEM 577.42 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :** - **R1(A) COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PETITIONER IN THE FILE NO.AD/D2/66/92(VOL IV)** - **R1(B) COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23/3/2011 WRITTEN BY THE DIRECTOR,SCHOOL INDUSTRIAL FISHERIES.** - **R1(C) COPY OF THE NORE NO.IRAA/82/2000 DATED 25/3/2011 SHOWING THE LIABILITY OF DR.KURUP.** - **R1(D) COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21/7/2011 BY THE DIRECTOR SCHOOL OF INDUSTRIAL FISHERIES** **-2-** ## **WP(C)NO.8397/2012** - **R1(E) COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF PARTIAL REMITTANCE DATED 22/9/2011** - **R1(F) COPY OF THE ENQUIRY NOTES OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 10/11/11 AND 25/11/11** - **R1(G) COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE SYNDICATE DATED 29/3/2012 SEND TO THE GOVERNMENT.** ## **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.S.TO.JUDGE** **sts** ## **ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 8397 OF 2012 ===================** ## **Dated this the 27[th] day of June, 2012** ## **J U D G M E N T** Petitioner is working as the Professor and Head, Department of Chemical Oceanography at the Ernakulam Campus of the Cochin University of Science and Technology. He has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P10 order passed by the Registrar of the University placing him under suspension from service, pending a detailed enquiry against him. 2. To the extent it is relevant, facts of the case are that, while the petitioner was working as above, by Ext.P1 order dated 24.7.2008, the petitioner was put in additional charge as the Registrar of the University w.e.f. 23.7.2008. He held charge of the post until he was relieved by Ext.P2 order dated 22.10.2011 when he handed over charge to the Registrar of the university. It appears that after he was relieved from the post of Registrar of University, Finance Inspection Wing of the Government of Kerala conducted inspection of the University and submitted Ext.P7 report to the Government. On the submission of Ext.P7 report as above, reports appeared in the news papers and visual media **WPC.No.8397/12** **:2 :** from 27[th] February, 2012 on the findings in the report regarding the relieving of Dr. Madhusoodana Kurup on deputation from the University to take up assignment as Vice Chancellor of the Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies (KUFOS). 3. It appears that in the 579[th] meeting of the Syndicate of the respondent University held on 27[th] of February, 2012, it was resolved to constitute a Sub Committee of Syndicate members to look into the issues regarding the relieving of Dr.Madhusoodana Kurup. Accordingly the Sub Committee submitted Ext.P8 report, in which, it was inter alia recommended that action of the petitioner who was in charge of Registrar in relieving Dr.Madusoodana Kurup without fulfilling the procedures was highly irregular and required detailed enquiry. It was stated that his presence in the University at the time of the enquiry is likely to influence and jeopardize the fairness of the enquiry and therefore, he was recommended to be placed under suspension pending enquiry. 4. This report of the Committee was considered by the Syndicate in its meeting held on 29/3/12 and the Syndicate resolved to implement the recommendations of the Sub **WPC.No.8397/12** **:3 :** Committee forthwith. It was accordingly that on 29/3/12 itself, the Registrar of the University issued Ext.P10 placing the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect. 5. It is in this background, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking mainly to quash Ext.P10 and to direct the respondents to permit him to continue as Professor and Head, Department of Chemical Oceanography under the 1[st] respondent University. 6. The main contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that no misconduct whatsoever has been committed by the petitioner justifying initiation of disciplinary proceedings. According to him, neither the facts pleaded by the respondents in the counter affidavit, nor Ext.P7, P8 or P10 justify suspension of the petitioner for the reasons mentioned therein. Therefore, according to him, the order of suspension has been issued without any application of mind and therefore is arbitrary and unconstitutional warranting interference by this Court. 7. Counter affidavits have been filed by the respondent University. One of the objection raised is that the writ petition **WPC.No.8397/12** **:4 :** has been filed without availing of the alternative remedy of appeal, provided under Statute 46 of the Cochin University First Statutes, 1981. It was also contended that disciplinary action is contemplated against the petitioner and that when disciplinary action is contemplated or pending, Statute 14(1)(a) of the Statutes entitle the appointing authority or the authority to which it is subordinate or any other authority empowered by the Syndicate to place any employee of the University under suspension. It was submitted that Exts.P7 and P8 reports of the inspection and the Sub Committee revealed very serious misconducts on the part of the petitioner for which disciplinary action was contemplated against him and that having regard to the nature of the allegations and misconducts alleged, the Syndicate was satisfied that the presence of the petitioner in service could affect the fairness of the enquiry. It was therefore that the University decided to place the petitioner under suspension. It was also contended that in the absence of any malafides, suspension being well within the powers of the University, this Court shall not interfere with Ext.P10. 8. I have considered the submissions made. **WPC.No.8397/12** **:5 :** 9. The first issue that calls for consideration is whether the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy of appeal. Statute 45 of the University Statutes provide that there shall be no appeal against an order passed under the Statutes, except as expressly provided in the Act or the Statutes. Statute 46 provides that a University employee may appeal against an order of suspension to the authority to which the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order is immediately subordinate. Section 8(3) of the University Act provides that all authorities of the University shall be subordinate to the Chancellor. It was relying on these provisions that the learned senior counsel for the respondent University contended that the petitioner has a right of appeal to the Chancellor and that therefore, it is for him to pursue the statutory alternative remedies. 10. However, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that Ext.P10 is an University order. It was also contended by him that under Section 8(7) of the Act, an appeal shall lie to the Chancellor only against an order of dismissal passed by the Syndicate or the Vice Chancellor against **WPC.No.8397/12** **:6 :** any person in the service of the University. He therefore contended that since appeal is provided only against an order of dismissal passed by the Syndicate and Ext.P10 is only an order of suspension, and that too, issued by the University itself, the remedy is not available against Ext.P10 order. 11. Having considered the submissions made by both sides, I am not inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, Ext.P10 order of suspension has been issued pursuant to a resolution of the Syndicate. Going by Section 8(3) of the Act, all authorities of the University, including the Syndicate, is subordinate to the Chancellor. Eventhough appeals under Section 8(7) are confined to orders of dismissal, specific provision has been made in Statute 46 enabling a suspended employee to file an appeal. In such circumstances, even though order issued by the Registrar is a University order, still an appeal against an order of suspension is maintainable to the Chancellor in view of Statute 46 read with Section 8(3) of the Cochin University Act. 12. In spite of the above finding on the maintainability of the appeal, question to be considered is, whether in the facts of **WPC.No.8397/12** **:7 :** this case, the writ petitioner deserves to be relegated to pursue the statutory alternative remedy. Immediately on the issuance of Ext.P10, this case was filed on 2/4/12. This case was admitted and parties have filed their pleadings. After extensive hearing, a very detailed interim order was passed on 3.4.2012 and at the final hearing also, elaborate arguments on the entire issues raised were addressed by both sides. As held by the Apex Court in its judgment in _**Kanak v. U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad**_ {2003 (7) SCC 693}, once a writ petition is admitted and entertained on merits, parties thereto shall not be relegated to pursue the alternative remedies even if any such statutory alternative statutory remedies are available. Therefore, even though I find that Ext.P10 is an appealable order, still in the facts of this case, I decline to reject the writ petition on that ground. 13. I shall now examine the validity of Ext.P10. The proceedings resulting in Ext.P10 order of suspension originated from Ext.P7, the report submitted by the Finance Inspection (NTF) Wing of the Government of Kerala. In this report, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, what is stated is that “ _the Registrar, CUSAT relieved Dr.Madhusoodana Kurup of 28/2/11 without_ ## **WPC.No.8397/12** **:8 :** _receiving official communications/ proceedings of the CUSAT/Syndicate approval. The act of Registrar is highly irregular_ ”. It is stated that “ _while huge liabilities are pending against Dr.Madusoodana Kurup, without settling the same, the Registrar, CUSAT has permitted to relieve of his duties as Director, School of Industrial Fisheries is highly irregular_ .” Based on the above findings, following recommendation has been made in Ext.P7 report. “ _Registrar, Sri. Chandra Mohana Kumar and Vice Chancellor CUSAT relieved Dr.B.Madhusoodana Kurup from the duties of Director, School of Industrial Fisheries without settling huge advances and without formal orders from University. CUSAT issued relieving order of Dr.B.Madhusoodana Kurup only on 27/6/2011 (Order No.Ad.D3/66/92(ii) Vol.IV dated 27.06.2011). Administrative department may initiate stringent disciplinary action against the Registrar, Sri. Chandra Mohana Kumar and Vice Chancellor CUSAT_ .” 14. It was this report which was considered by the 579[th] meeting of the Syndicate held on 27[th] February, 2012. This meeting resolved to constitute a Sub Committee consisting of 5 members to look into the issues. Ext.P8 is the report submitted, which shows that the Sub Committee had two sittings and it **:9 :** ## **WPC.No.8397/12** ## found thus; _“The sub-committee met on 2[nd] March 2012 to study the matter in detail and called upon all files pertaining to Dr.B.Madhusoodhana Kurup including the files from Administration, Planning & Development Division and IRAA Unit. The committee also called upon all the correspondences between the Finance Inspection Wing and the University related to this issue. From the file (File No.AdD3/66/92 (ii) Vol IV) maintained in the Administration it was found that Dr.Madhusoodana Kurup, Professor and Director of School of Industrial Fisheries in his letter addressed to the Registrar has stated that the Government of Kerala had appointed him as the 1[st] Vice Chancellor of Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies (KUFOS) for a period of 5 years and requested to relieve him on deputation basis by protecting all service benefits. He has written this request on 26 of February 2011 on which date, no such appointment order was issued to him by the Government of Kerala. This request is seen received by the DR (Admn.II) on 28[th] February 2011. On the same day the section concerned i.e. Administration D Section (in file No.Ad D2/66/92 (ii) Vol.IV, page 15 nf) had put up file regarding the relieving of Dr.Kurup as Vice Chancellor of KUFOS. In the note it is highlighted that Dr.Kurup, Prof. and Director of School of Industrial Fisheries may be deputed as Vice Chancellor, KUFOS for a period up to 30/4/2015 under the usual terms and conditions envisaged under chapter XI-Foreign Service, Part I KSR subject to reporting to syndicate and subject to receiving official communication from the State Government. It is also noted that the liability reports may be called from various departments/offices immediately. The Asst. Registrar concerned_ **WPC.No.8397/12** **:10 :** _had endorsed the views stating that whether we may wait for official communication addressed to the University in this regard._ _Registrar recommended as follows:_ _“1. Liability Reports may be called for from various depts./offices immediately. 2. The Syndicate is the authority competent to sanction deputation and since Dr.B.Madhusoodhana Kurup has reportedly assume charge on 28[th] February 2011, VC may consider sanctioning deputation of Dr.Kurup as the VC, KUFOS for a period up to 30.4.2015 under the usual terms and conditions of deputation._ _3. An affidavit submitted by Dr.Kurup is appended.”_ _V.C approved the recommendation of the Registrar on 28[th] itself in this file._ _The rule position for relieving any employee from University service is the following._ _1. He has to apply through proper channel or_ _2. He has to obtain No Objection Certificate (NOC) for accepting a foreign employment outside the University Service producing the Original Official Appointment Order. 3. Syndicate is the authority to grant NOC._ _In this case, Dr.B.Madhusoodhana Kurup has not requested for No Objection Certificate for accepting a foreign employment outside the University from the Syndicate nor settled all the liabilities of the University at the time of his relieving from the University. He has not produced the Official Order of Appointment as_ **WPC.No.8397/12** **:11 :** _the Vice Chancellor, KUFOS issued by the Government. The officer concerned, in this case the Registrar, has to verify the authenticity of this from various sections and obtain a Non Liability Certificate before considering his request._ _In this regard it may be noted that even though the section concerned and the AR (Admn.I) highlighted the fact that Dr.Kurup may be relieved on receipt of official communication from the State Government addressed to the University; it was not included in the recommendation of the Registrar to the Vice Chancellor. The V.C. approved the recommendation of the Registrar on the same day i.e. 28[th] Feb.2011._ _It may also be noted that no University Order was issued for relieving Dr.B.Madhusoodhana Kurup on that date. Dr.Madhusoodhana Kurup has left the University without any relieving order on 28[th] February 2012._ _It is seen a CTC was signed between Dr.Kurup (Relieved Officer) and Prof. Dr.A.Ramachandran (Relieving Officer) on forenoon of 1[st] March 2011 vide Ad.D2 Vol.IV dated 28.2.2011.”_ ## 15. Proceeding further, it is stated that the Sub Committee examined the report of the Finance Inspection Wing and the files and made the following observations; “ _Dr.B.Madhusoodhana Kurup has requested the Registrar to relieve him on 26[th] February, 2011 referring the State Cabinet Decision to appoint him as the Vice Chancellor, KUFOS even before the G.O. was issued by the_ **WPC.No.8397/12** **:12 :** _Government. His request was to relieve him on deputation w.e.f. 28[th] February 2011 and the Registrar had relieved him on 28[th] itself without him settling the outstanding liabilities or adjusting the advances drawn by him for various projects as also without receiving a formal order from the Government for deputation_ .” ## Thereafter, the Sub Committee arrived at the following finding; _“Dr.Chandramohana Kumar, who was in charge of Registrar, relieved him without obtaining an official order from the Government appointing Dr.B.Madhusoodhana Kurup as the Vice Chancellor, KUFOS._ _His hasty action in relieving Dr.Madhusoodana Kurup without seeking Non Liability Certificate from various offices is in violation of rules and regulations”_ . On that basis, the Sub Committee made the following ## recommendation; _“The action of Dr.Chandramohana Kumar who was in charge of Registrar in relieving Dr.Madhusoodhan Kurup without fulfilling the procedures is highly irregular and require detailed enquiry. His presence in the University at the time of detailed enquiry is likely to influence and jeopardizes the fairness of the enquiry. Hence he may be placed under suspension pending enquiry.”_ 16. It is also seen from Ext.P8 report that one of the members of the Committee expressed his dissent which has been **WPC.No.8397/12** **:13 :** attached to the report as Appendix 8. 17. The report of the Sub committee was considered by the Syndicate in its meeting held on 29/3/12 and the Syndicate resolved to implement the recommendation forthwith. It was accordingly Ext.P10 was issued, the concluding portion of which reads as under; _“The Syndicate at its meeting held on 29/3/12 considered the report of the Sub Committee in detail and resolved to implement the recommendations forthwith._ _Orders are therefore issued placing Dr.N.Chandramohanakumar, Professor, Department of Chemical Oceanography, School of Marine Sciences under suspension from the University service, pending detailed enquiry, with immediate effect.”_ The facts being as above, question to be considered is whether a case has been made out justifying suspension of the petitioner. 18. The requirement of law in the case of suspension of an employee has been examined by the Apex Court in _**State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty**_ {(1994) 4 SCC 126}, where in para 13, it was held thus; _“13. It is thus settled law that normally when an appointing authority or the disciplinary authority seeks to suspend an employee, pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or_ **WPC.No.8397/12** **:14 :** _pending investigation into grave charges of misconduct or defalcation of funds or serious acts of omission and commission the order of suspension would be passed after taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct sought to be inquired into or investigated and the nature of the evidence placed before the appointing authority and on application of the mind by disciplinary authority. Appointing authority or disciplinary authority should consider the above aspects and decide whether it is expedient to keep an employee under suspension pending aforesaid action. It would not be as an administrative routine or an automatic order to suspend an employee. It should be on consideration of the gravity of the alleged misconduct or the nature of the allegations imputed to the delinquent employee. The Court or the Tribunal must consider each case on its own facts and no general law could be laid down in that behalf. Suspension is not a punishment but is only one of forbidding or disabling an employee to discharge the duties of office or post held by him. In other words it is to refrain him to avail further opportunity to perpetrate the alleged misconduct or to remove the impression among the members of service that dereliction of duty would pay fruits and the offending employee could get away even pending inquiry without any impediment or to prevent an opportunity to the delinquent officer to scuttle the inquiry or investigation or to win over the witnesses or the delinquent having had the opportunity in office to impede the progress of the investigation or inquiry etc. But as stated earlier, each case must be considered depending on the nature of the allegations, gravity of the situation and the indelible impact it creates on the service for the continuance of the delinquent employee in service pending_ **WPC.No.8397/12** **:15 :** _inquiry or contemplated inquiry or investigation. It would be another thing if the action is actuated by mala fides, arbitrary or for ulterior purpose. The suspension must be a step in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or inquiry. The authority also should keep in mind public interest of the impact of the delinquent's continuance in office while facing departmental inquiry or trial of a criminal charge”_ 19. A Division Bench of this Court also had occasion to examine the validity of an order of suspension in _**Surendran, K.**_ ## _**v. Government of Kerala and others**_ (ILR 2008 (3) Ker. 587), where at page 590, it was held thus: _“The power to suspend an employee should be exercised with caution and care as an order of suspension pending enquiry may put the employee into shame and humiliation. Of course, if the continuance of the employee in the same place affects the disciplinary proceedings, the employer can suspend the employee. Whether an employee should be suspended pending enquiry will depend upon various circumstances. Suspension pending enquiry though cannot be considered as a punishment, it cannot be disputed that it causes real hardship to an employee. The stigma attached cannot be ignored. The object in placing an employee under suspension pending enquiry is to enable the administration to conduct the proceedings smoothly so as to establish the allegations or the charge against the employee. If he is allowed to continue on duty, there may be occasion for tampering with the evidence so that the investigation cannot be successfully conducted. The power to_ **WPC.No.8397/12** **:16 :** _suspend is discretionary. There should be material to justify the suspension. The order should be free from the taint of mala fides, arbitrariness and extraneous considerations. Subjective satisfaction regarding suspension should be based on objective considerations and relevant circumstances. The suspension order should be sparingly passed in compelling circumstances. It is true that commission of grave misconduct may be a ground for suspending an employee, but the need for suspending an employee would not necessarily depend upon the gravity of the charges alone. The disciplinary authority should consider whether it is necessary to keep the employee away from the post”._ 20. Subsequently in the Division Bench judgment in _**Vikraman Nair, K. v. State of Kerala (Chief Secretary)**_ (ILR 2008 (4) Ker.395}, following the Apex Court judgment noticed above, this Court held thus; _“12. The appointing authority or the disciplinary authority while considering whether an employee should be placed under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings and departmental enquiry should certainly consider the seriousness of the misconduct sought to be enquired into or investigated and the nature of the materials place before such authority. It must be on proper application of mind that the disciplinary authority should decided on the question of suspension. The order of suspension cannot be issued merely as an administrative routine or as automatic following the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings. The suspension must be a step in aid to the_ **WPC.No.8397/12** **:17 :** _ultimate result of the investigation or enquiry. Public interest of the impact of the delinquent's continuance in office while facing departmental enquiry is also a matter which the authority concerned should bear in mind while deciding whether the delinquent employee must be placed under suspension (See State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty (1994) 4 SCC 126)”._ 21. Therefore, when an officer is to be placed under suspension, it is for the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority to consider the necessity of placing him under suspension. While taking such a decision, the gravity of the misconducts, the nature of the evidence placed before him, the possibility of the delinquent scuttling the enquiry by influencing the witness, tampering with the evidence and such other relevant factors should be considered. Accordingly, having regard to the facts of the case and on proper application of mind, the disciplinary authority should take a conscious decision to place the delinquent under suspension. In this case, the question is whether the resolution of the Syndicate mentioned in Ext.P10 satisfies these requirements of law. 22. Having gone through the pleadings and the documents in this case, particularly the contents of Ext.P10 order, I am **WPC.No.8397/12** **:18 :** satisfied that the Syndicate of the University has merely accepted the recommendation of the Sub Committee without any further application of mind regarding the necessity to place the petitioner under suspension. Thus, the decision to place the petitioner under suspension is not one which meets the standards laid down by the Apex Court or the Division Bench in the judgments noticed above. For that reason, I am unable to uphold Ext.P10 to the extent, the petitioner is ordered to be placed under suspension. 23. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner wanted me to examine the sustainability of the various allegations levelled against the petitioner in Ext.P7 and P8 and to hold that the very disciplinary enquiry was unwarranted and unjustified. According to him, even if the allegations are taken at its face value, no misconduct was made out justifying the disciplinary proceedings. However, the disciplinary proceedings are at its threshold. Once memo of charges is issued, it is for the delinquent to file his written statement of defence and thereafter if the disciplinary authority decides to proceed with the matter, it is for them to enquire into the matter and come to a final decision having regard to the evidence available. Therefore, at this stage, ## **WPC.No.8397/12** **:19 :** it is premature for this Court to venture into those areas canvassed by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and for that reason, I refrain myself from considering the aforesaid contention. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P10 to the extent the petitioner is placed under suspension and clarifying that the findings in this judgment shall be without prejudice to the right of the University to proceed against the petitioner further with disciplinary action, if they choose to do so. ## **ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE** Rp