The main legal point established in the judgment is that non-compliance with the time limit set by Section 60 (4) of the Kerala University Act does not automatically invalidate the entire disciplinary proceedings.

Bhaskaran, J.

The scope and ambit of Section 60 (4) of the Kerala University Act and whether it is mandatory or only directory is the main question for decision in this revision. There is also the further question as to whether the enquiry conducted against the petitioner is vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice? This civil revision petition is filed challenging the common judgment of the Kerala University Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum in Appeal Nos.4 and 6 of 2004.

2. The petitioner in the revision petition, Dr. N. Raveendran was the Principal of Sree Narayana Guru College, Chelannur. He was originally appointed as Lecturer under the first respondent S.N. Trust. He was promoted and appointed as Principal on 5-10-1998. He was issued a show cause notice while on probation as Principal and was reverted as Selection Grade Lecturer. This Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 1633 of 2001 and 1598 of 2001 found that the order of reversion is punitive and could not have been made without an enquiry. The petitioner was directed to be reinstated as Principal without prejudice to the right of the management to act in accordance with law.

3. Subsequently the management issued a show cause notice proposing disciplinary proceedings on 3-11-2001. The petitioner filed objections. Thereafter memo of charges were issued on 16-4-2002 and the petitioner was suspended from service on 23-4-2002. Though the order of suspension was challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal as well as tins Court there was only a direction to complete the enquiry as expeditiously as possible. A retired District Judge, M.K. Abdulla who was appointed as Enquiry Officer expressed his inability to continue the enquiry. Sri Sudhakaran, another retired District Judge was appointed as Enquiry Officer. This Court in C. M. P. No.5674/2002 in C. R. P. No. 1344/2002 passed an order on 1-11-2002 that if the enquiry was not completed before 30-11-2002 the petitioner should be reinstated in service without prejudice to the continuation of enquiry. Sri Sudhakaran also expressed his inability to continue as Enquiry Officer since the petitioner raised a contention that he had close relationship with Sri Vellappalli Natesan, the General Secretary of S.N. Trust. Petitioner was thereafter reinstated as Principal though after filing application for taking action for contempt of Court for non implementation of order of reinstatement in service. The petitioner rejoined duty as Principal on 26-12-2002 and entered on leave for 15 days. Thereafter he was reverted as Selection Grade Lecturer on the ground that he had not satisfactorily completed his probation as Principal. The reversion order was set aside by the University Appellate Tribunal and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated as Principal. In the meanwhile the first respondent appointed Sri K. Aravindaksha Menon, a retired District Judge as Enquiry Officer. He commenced enquiry by notice dated 13-3-2003. Petitioner filed an objection to the enquiry on the ground that the period of sanction from the Vice Chancellor to continue the disciplinary proceedings expired on 12-9-2002. The preliminary objection was overruled and the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry and filed his report on 14-7-2003. On the basis of the enquiry report the first respondent issued notice dated 13-8-2003 proposing the dismissal of the petitioner from service. Thereafter by order dated 25-3-2004 the order of dismissal was passed by the first respondent.

4. Petitioner challenged the order of dismissal before the Appellate Tribunal and by judgment dated 26-5-2004, the order of management, was sustained. In this revision petition the petitioner has raised two contentions:

(1) The entire disciplinary proceedings and order of punishment are invalid in as much as there is violation of section 60 of the Kerala University Act. The disciplinary proceedings were not completed within the period of 3 months or within such further pe