1. The Principal and Manager of S.N. College are at loggerheads for the last few years challenging the legality or otherwise of an order of termination. The issue came up for consideration before a Bench consisting of one of us, K.S. Radhakrishnan, J., in W.A.1633 of 2001 and connected cases wherein the Bench had elaborately considered the law and facts, therefore we need not reiterate the entire facts, but only the essential facts for disposal of these cases.

2. Dr. N. Raveendran was appointed as Principal by order of the management dated 5.10.1998. He was served with a show cause notice dated 17.1.2000 stating that his service as Principal during the period of probation was not satisfactory and was found not suitable for continuance as Principal and hence decided to terminate his probation and to revert him to the post of Selection Grade Lecturer in History. Management gave 15 days time to submit his objections, if any. Dr. Raveendran filed a detailed objection on 3.2.2000 on the various charges levelled against him. He submitted if those charges are allowed to stand the same would cast a stigma on him. Further he had also pointed out that under S.59(7) of the Kerala University Act he should be deemed to have been confirmed in the post of Principal on 5.10.1999. Show cause notice was challenged before the University Tribunal. Tribunal accepted the contention of the Principal and held that issuance of show cause notice was bad in law since he had already completed the period of probation. Further, Tribunal also took the view that after completion of probation the management cannot terminate the probation and revert the principal without initiating disciplinary action and conducting any enquiry. The order of the Tribunal was challenged before this Court. Management tried to sustain the show cause notice stating that the notice was issued during the period of probation and hence valid. The Principal took the view that since he had already completed the period of probation there is no question of terminating his probation and reverting him from the post of Principal. The Bench after considering the entire facts as well as examining the scope of S.59 of the Kerala University Act held as follows:

"We are of the view, deeming provision under S.59(7) would apply only on completion of maximum period prescribed under S.59(1). In the instant case Dr. Raveendran was appointed as Principal on 5.10.1998. Mere fact that he had completed one year service on 5.10.1999 would not mean that he was deemed to be confirmed in the post of Principal. That reasoning of the Tribunal cannot be accepted. Management has got the maximum period of two years from the date of entry in service or a further extended period of one year, as the case may be, to declare his probation. In other words, deeming provision would apply only after the expiry of the maximum period of probation fixed by the statute. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that Dr. Raveendran was deemed to be confirmed in the post of Principal is set aside."

Bench however, noticed that the show cause notice issued by the management on 17.1.2000 was punitive in nature since it was not proceeded by any enquiry and held as follows:

"We are of the view, aforementioned allegations are of serious nature which has the effect of tarnishing the image of Principal of a College. It will cast a stigma on him in future selection to the post of Principal and other posts, which will lower his reputation in the eye of public and visit the Principal with penal consequences. We cannot brush aside those allegations as innocuously of a probationer. We are therefore of the view that the termination of the Principal from the post as well as reversion without conducting any enquiry is punitive in nature and has to be set aside. We therefore set aside the order of termination and reversion dated 12.7.2000."

Show cause noticed dated 17.1.2000 was accordingly set aside. Consequently the Bench held that the ord