G.P. Sudheer v. Manager, Christian College, Katakkada; The University of Kerala; The Director of Collegiate Education

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY, 2008 / 27TH POUSHA, 1929 CRP.No. 371 of 2002 (G) ---------------------------(Appeal NO.15/2000 of KERALA UNIVERSITY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) .................... ## PETITIONER/APPELLANT: --------------------------- G.P. SUDHEER, LECTURER IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION, CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, KATTAKKADA. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR ## RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. MANAGER, CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, KATAKKADA, L.M.S. COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33. 2. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, KERALA UNIVERSITY OFFICE, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.R.LAKSHMINARAYANAN SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS,SC FOR KERALA UTY. SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SC KERALA UTY. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **P.R.RAMAN & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------C.R.P.NO. 371 OF 2002 – G ------------------------------------------------Dated this the 17[th] day of January, 2008.** ## **O R D E R** ## **Raman,J:** The petitioner is a Lecturer in Physical Education in a private college at Kattakkada. Disciplinary action was taken against him which culminated in barring of one increment without cumulative effect. The order imposing penalty was the subject matter of challenge before the Kerala University Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum in an appeal filed by him as per the statute. The Tribunal by its order dated 31.10.2001 dismissed the appeal and impugning the said decision, this civil revision petition is filed. 2. The point which was argued before us is that the delinquent was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements were relied on while imposing the punishment. It is also contended that having due regard to the nature of the seriousness of the charges, a formal C.R.P.No.371 of 2002 :-2-: enquiry ought to have been conducted rather than following the procedure for imposing a minor penalty. 3. For appreciating the above argument, we may state a few more facts relating to the disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner. It is alleged that on 26.7.2000, he called a co-Lecturer by name C.Robinson, who was a Selection Grade Hindi Lecturer, from the staff room and took him to the Physical Education Department, and thereafter both of them talked about the divorce of the delinquent's wife, who is stated to be a mental patient and relative of Mr.Robinson and due to aggravated enmity, the delinquent pulled him down from the chair, kicked on his hip and beat with an iron rod causing injury. Further he also pressed his neck with his hands and attempted to murder him. He also pulled him down and hit him with a lock on his head, repeatedly causing bleeding injury on his head. Due to such injuries sustained, Mr.Robinson fell down unconscious. Then the delinquent went out of the staff room, took his car and disappeared from the college premises. Mr.Robinson C.R.P.No.371 of 2002 :-3-: was subsequently admitted to the Government Hospital and he was removed from there, and again, he was admitted by his colleagues to the P.N.M.Hospital, Kattakkada for better treatment. He was under treatment there till 2.8.2000. It is stated that the above act constitutes a gross misconduct and dereliction of duty, unbecoming to the status of a college teacher and setting a bad example to the students and hence, the delinquent is liable to be proceeded for disciplinary action under the provisions of the Kerala University Act and Statutes thereon. The statement of allegations appended to the charge sheet gives a gist of the statement given by the witnesses numbering about ten. 4. The petitioner submitted his reply denying the allegations. However, he admitted the fact that there was scuffle between the two, but alleged that Mr.Robinson had hit him with a small granite piece. The disciplinary authority, however, after taking into consideration of the statement given by Mr.Robinson, the alleged victim and also the statements of the co-Lecturers who were working in the C.R.P.No.371 of 2002 :-4-: same college and also the statements of some of the students who witnessed the incident came to the irresistible conclusion that the mis-conduct has been proved, but still he was imposed only a minor penalty of barring one increment without any cumulative effect. Before issuing the charge sheet, the authority conducted a preliminary enquiry for which purpose a commission was appointed consisting of Senior Lecturers. The petitioner gave statement before that commission. Mr.Robinson had given the statement. Besides him, various other Lecturers and students in the college were also called who gave statements. 5. We have gone through the statements of the witnesses and we find that all the witnesses have spoken about the incident implicating the petitioner of having assaulted the victim namely, Mr.Robinson. Besides the above, there is also a medical evidence. As per the wound certificate, the said Robinson had incised wound at the occipital region of the body having 2.5 cms. x 0.3 cms. x 0.5 cms. Though the case of the petitioner in the explanation C.R.P.No.371 of 2002 :-5-: offered by him is that Mr.Robinson had also hit him with a small granite piece, he did not make any such allegation before the commission when he gave statement at the first time. At any rate, on a consideration of the entire facts together with the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the allegation as raised against the petitioner is totally false or that he was imposed punishment without any materials on record to substantiate the allegations raised in the charge sheet. 6. According to the petitioner, he was found guilty and punished based on a preliminary enquiry conducted by a Commission comprising of three Lecturers and the statements were recorded by them in the course of the preliminary enquiry. But, according to him, those statements were not recorded in the presence of the petitioner and he was never afforded an opportunity to cross-examine any of those witnesses and the disciplinary authority has placed reliance on such statement also for imposing the punishment on him. This, according to him, is C.R.P.No.371 of 2002 :-6-: denial of a reasonable opportunity of being heard. He placed reliance on two decisions of this Court reported in **Kunhikannan Nambiar** v. **Govt. of Kerala** (2002(1) KLT 420) and **Ramankutty Warrier** v. **State of Kerala** (1983 KLT 245). A learned single Judge of this Court in Kunhikannan Nambiar's case (cited supra), having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, held that the proper procedure that ought to have been followed by the disciplinary authority was to conduct a formal enquiry to establish the charges. It was also observed that what is reasonable opportunity had to be decided in the facts and circumstances of the case and not solely based on the quantum of penalty that might finally be imposed on the employee. In that case, it was found that the charges were not proved by adducing evidence in support of the allegations and reasonable opportunity as required by law was not afforded to the petitioner therein before he was found guilty of the charges. Though in that case also a minor penalty was imposed, the court took a view that C.R.P.No.371 of 2002 :-7-: having due regard to the seriousness of the charges levelled against, it would have been appropriate for the disciplinary authority to conduct a formal enquiry, but while examining the facts of the case, it can be seen that punishment was imposed after calling for explanation from the concerned delinquent and there was absolutely no evidence on record to sustain the charges. In other words, in the present case, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by a commission consisting of three senior Lecturers who have called the coLecturers and students who have witnessed the case and recorded their statement and it is thereafter, the authorities have proceeded to issue a charge sheet, whereas the case decided by this Court cited supra would show that the disciplinary authority did not follow any such procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Ramankutty Warrier's case (cited supra) wherein it was held that the imposition of a minor penalty cannot be expedient to dispense with a detailed enquiry. It was found that the orders impugned were against the principles of natural C.R.P.No.371 of 2002 :-8-: justice and hence cannot be allowed to stand merely because the punishment imposed is a minor penalty under Rule 11 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 (for short 'the K.C.S (CC&A) Rules). That was also a case where a charge sheet was issued to the delinquent raising serious allegations and he was only required to show cause why disciplinary action shall not be given against him. He denied the charges. But, the explanation was not accepted and a punishment was imposed without any further enquiry. Thus, both the above decisions are not similar to a situation of this nature. Here, though it is not obligatory on the part of the disciplinary authority to conduct a preliminary enquiry, the delinquent being a Lecturer, who is alleged to have assaulted another Lecturer of the same college, a commission consisting of three Senior Lecturers was constituted and independent and impartial enquiry was conducted in the matter where witnesses examined are none other than the co-Lecturers of the petitioner and some of the students studying in the C.R.P.No.371 of 2002 :-9-: college and against whom, the petitioner had no case that they are inimical towards him. In the above circumstances, when the rule stricto senso contemplates only a procedure for giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard, being a minor penalty imposed, factual situation would clearly show that in this case, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not given any such reasonable opportunity of being heard. 7. In such circumstances, we find no good ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. **(P.R.RAMAN)** Judge **(V.K.MOHANAN)** Judge Mbs/ C.R.P.No.371 of 2002 :-10-: ## **P.R.RAMAN & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ.** -------------------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.371 OF 2002 ------------------------------------ **O R D E R** DATED: 17.1.2008 C.R.P.No.371 of 2002 :-11-: