Parvathy Ramachandran v. The Vice Chancellor, Kerala University and Others

**WP(C) NO. 30750 OF 2021** **1** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V TUESDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 14TH POUSHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 30750 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER/S:** PARVATHY RAMACHANDRAN AGED 37 YEARS D/O. RAMACHANDRAN K., T. C. 57/1153, VARENYAM, KARINGADAMUGAL, THIRUVALLAM P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 027. (NOW WORKING AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH, S. N. COLLEGE, CHENGANNUR). BY ADVS. R.PRADEEP (TRIVANDRUM) ARAVIND GHOSH ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 THE VICE CHANCELLOR, KERALA UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. 2 THE MANAGER, S. N. COLLEGES, POST BOX NO.63, S. N. TRUST OFFICE, KOLLAM - 691571. 3 THASMILA K., ADVOCATE, DHARMAPALAM ASSOCIATES, 1ST FLOOR, 18/180B, NEAR INDIRA JUNCTION, D.C. ROAD, ALAPPUZHA - 688013. (ENQUIRY OFFICER, APPOINTED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT). 4 VINOD HARIDAS, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF BOTANY, T. K. M. M. COLLEGE, NANGIARKULANGARA, HARIPPAD, ALAPPUZHA - 690513. **WP(C) NO. 30750 OF 2021 2** 5 RAJEEV S. R., HEAD OF ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT, T. K. M. M. COLLEGE, NANGIARKULANGARA. SRI THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC SRI A N RAJAN BABU, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 30750 OF 2021** **3** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner is presently working as an Assistant Professor in English at the SN College, Chengannur. She has approached this Court being aggrieved by the enquiry proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent by employing the 3rd respondent, who is a Lawyer by profession. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Enquiry Officer is an Advocate by profession and unless the petitioner is also afforded an opportunity to engage a lawyer, her interest may suffer. The petitioner also contends that she nurses a reasonable apprehension in her mind that she would be heckled by other Teachers who are inimical to her if she participates in the proceedings. It is on these grounds that the petitioner has approached this Court with this writ petition. 2. Sri.Pradeep R., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court and had filed W.P.(C) No.24604 of 2021 and this Court, by Exhibit-P2 judgment, had directed the respondents to hand over copies of all documents relied on by the Management in the enquiry and that the petitioner shall also be granted an opportunity to appear before the Enquiry Officer and furnish her explanation. The learned counsel submitted that pursuant to the same, **WP(C) NO. 30750 OF 2021 4** Exhibit-P3 letter was issued by the Enquiry Officer wherein mention is made to a complaint lodged against the petitioner by the Teachers of TKMM College, Nangiarkulangara. It is contended that no copy of the complaint referred to in the letter was served to her. The learned counsel would further contend that based on a complaint lodged by the petitioner herein on 21.08.2021, a crime has been registered against the Principal-in-charge as well as some of the Teachers in respect of an incident that took place on 16.8.2021. The learned counsel contends that if the petitioner were to appear before the Enquiry Officer, there is every likelihood that she would be heckled and harassed by the accused in the Crime, who are also Teachers. The learned counsel would also refer to a judgment of this Court in **Vaikom** **Taluk Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. No. K 951 v. Anilkumar and Others** [2020 (4) KHC 81] and it is submitted that as the Enquiry proceedings are conducted by a person having legal acumen and experience, the delinquent should also be granted an opportunity to present her defence with the assistance of a Lawyer. 3. Sri.A.N.Rajan Babu, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that the assertions made by the petitioner are without merit. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner had approached this Court earlier and while disposing of the said writ petition, this Court took note **WP(C) NO. 30750 OF 2021 5** of the facts that the enquiry, which is proposed to be conducted is not a formal enquiry as contemplated under Statue 71(1) to (15) in Chapter 4A of the Kerala University Statute. The enquiry, which is now proposed, is mainly to ascertain the genuineness of the complaints lodged by the petitioner against some of the Teachers. It is submitted that the Management does not propose to avail the service of a Lawyer and hence, the petitioner cannot now contend that she should be represented by a legal practitioner. It is further submitted that the principles laid down by this Court in **Vaikom Taluk Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank** (supra) will not have any application in the instant case as the enquiry now being conducted is only to ascertain the genuineness of the allegations levelled by the petitioner herself. A complaint has also been lodged against the petitioner by the parents and children and the said matter shall also be considered. According to the learned counsel, even in the earlier occasion when the petitioner had approached this Court, she had no case that she should be represented by a Lawyer. It is further submitted that the reference to a complaint lodged by the Teachers in the notice issued by the Enquiry Officer, which is produced as Exhibit-P3, is not correct as there is no such complaint. It is also submitted that copies of all complaints and materials which are placed before the Enquiry Officer shall be furnished to the petitioner. **WP(C) NO. 30750 OF 2021 6** 4. The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has serious apprehension that harm would be caused to the petitioner by the accused in the crime, who are also Teachers in the School and who have been proposed as witnesses. 5. Sri. Rajan Babu, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, submitted that the apprehension raised by the petitioner is misconceived and no efforts shall be spared to ensure the safety of the petitioner. 6. I have considered the submissions and have perused the records. From the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, it appears that the scope of the enquiry before the 3rd respondent is limited to a) Complaint petition dated 17.02.2021 filed by the petitioner, - b) Application dated 04.05.2021 filed by the petitioner, - c) A complaint submitted by some parents as well as students - d) A report dated 13.07.2021 of the Enquiry Committee, which is an enquiry report based on a complaint lodged by the petitioner herself. 7. Reference in the letter issued by the Enquiry Officer, to a complaint **WP(C) NO. 30750 OF 2021 7** lodged by the Teachers, is erroneous as according to Sri. Rajan Babu, there is no such complaint. The documents and materials referred to as (a) to (d) above shall be furnished, if not already furnished. 8. The request of the petitioner to permit her to enable the service of an Advocate cannot be allowed in the facts and circumstances and also in view of the earlier proceedings. 9. The respondents shall ensure that the petitioner is not heckled by any of the Teachers or staff of the Institution when the petitioner appears to participate in the enquiry proceedings. The 3rd respondent shall make sure that the petitioner is not threatened or subjected to any harassment. If any such incident occurs or is expected to occur, the 3rd respondent shall change the venue of enquiry to any independent place. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE** DSV **WP(C) NO. 30750 OF 2021 8** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30750/2021** PETITIONER (S) EXHIBITS: Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT INQUIRY OFFICER DATED 11.09.2021. - Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT OF KERALA DATED 09.11.2021 IN WP(C) NO.24604/2021. - Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12.11.2021. - Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE INQUIRY OFFICER DATED 9.12.2021. - Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DISMISSING THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER BY THE INQUIRY OFFICER DATED 10.11.2021. - Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OP TICKET DATED 16.08.2021 ISSUED FROM TALUK HOSPITAL, HARIPPAD. - Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CARD FROM COSMOPOLITAN HOSPITAL, TRIVANDRUM DATED 20.08.2021. - Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.539/2021 OF HARIPPAD POLICE STATION. - Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN W.A.NO.103/2020. RESPONDENT (S) EXHIBITS: NIL