Back
2015 Supreme(Ker) 213
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
DR.M.P.ANITHA – Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AND ORS. – Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 4388 OF 2015
Decided On : 01.04.2015
For the Petitioner: SRI.M.P.PRAKASH
For the Respondent: SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SMT.PREETHI KESAVAN, SRI.T.C.KRISHNA, SMT.ASHA K.SHENOY, SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR, SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.), SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SUNITHA VINOD, SRI.VARUGHESE M.EASO, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY.
The court emphasized the role of the enquiry officer in determining the charges' vagueness and misconduct, and highlighted the limitations of judicial review in ongoing disciplinary proceedings.
Headnote:
Suspension - Disciplinary Proceedings - Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes - Statute 75, Statute 39 - Charges, Misconduct, Disciplinary Powers - [SUSPENSION] - [EDUCATION] - [Statute 75 of Chapter 45, Statute 39 of Chapter 45, Section 63(1) and 63(4) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act] - The court discussed the interpretation of Statute 75 and Statute 39 of Chapter 45 of Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997, which stipulate the procedure for imposing major penalties and enumerate lapses constituting improper conduct inviting disciplinary action. The court also analyzed the disciplinary powers of the Educational Agency over teachers of private colleges as per Section 63(1) and 63(4) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, and their implications on the petitioner's suspension and reinstatement.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Principal of an aided college, was under suspension and faced dismissal from service. The petitioner challenged the suspension, memo of charges, and continuation of suspension, arguing that the charges were vague and did not reflect misconduct as per the statutory provisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner should be reinstated as a teacher but not as Principal, and directed the petitioner to cooperate with the disciplinary proceedings. The court also addressed the interpretation of the statutory provisions and the limitations of judicial review in ongoing disciplinary proceedings.
Issues: Vagueness of charges, Continuation of suspension, Interpretation of statutory provisions, Disciplinary powers of Educational Agency
Ratio Decidendi: The charges' vagueness and misconduct determination are to be addressed by the enquiry officer. The court cannot invoke judicial review in ongoing disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner's reinstatement as a teacher was ordered, and the disciplinary proceedings were to be concluded within a specified period.
Final Decision: The petitioner was reinstated as a teacher but not as Principal, and directed to cooperate with the disciplinary proceedings. The court issued specific directions regarding the petitioner's reinstatement and duties during the disciplinary proceedings.
The petitioner is the Principal of SNM Training College, an aided college affiliated with Mahatma Gandhi University. The petitioner is under suspension from 5/5/2014 onwards, as per Ext.P11. Thereafter, by proceedings dated 28/10/2014 punishment of dismissal from service has been proposed on the petitioner by the management. Challenging the above, the petitioner approached this court by filing W.P.(C) No.29124/2014. This court disposed the writ petition interfering with Ext.P11 and directed that the parties should be relegated to disciplinary proceedings with the position of status quo ante to the proposed punishment. The management was also given liberty to issue fresh memo of charges. The petitioner approached this Court challenging the memo of charges and also continuation of suspension.
2. The main argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that memo of charges are vague and do not reflect misconduct as contemplated under Statute 75 of Chapter 45 of Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997. The learned counsel relying on the judgment of this Court in F.Augustine Mathew v. Devamatha College (2002 (3) KLT 509), submits that once the charges are vague and could not qualify the misconduct, as contemplated under the statutory provisions, the entire charges are liable to be quashed. It is further argued that memo of charges were issued only on January 2015 and the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement.
3. In this matter the management has filed a counter affidavit. The learned senior counsel appearing for the management submits that continuation of suspension is in compliance with the judgment of this court in Ext.P24. It is further submitted that the suspension order was challenged in an earlier writ petition resulted in Ext.P24 judgment and this court did not interfere with the suspension order. It is further submitted that this Court cannot invoke judicial review in respect of an on going disciplinary proceedings on a challenge on which fact finding is required.
4. Statute 75 of Chapter 45 of Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes stipulates procedure for imposing major penalties. That statute stipulates that for taking action against the teachers of a private college, such authority shall frame definite charge or charges which shall be communicated to the teacher of a private college together with the statement of the allegations on which each charge is based, and of any other circumstance which it is proposed to take into consideration in passing orders on the case. Thereafter, after receiving a written statement, if any from the teacher within the time allowed, the authority shall decide whether he proceeded with enquiry or not. The argument is that the management ought to have addressed itself merit of allegation before proceeding further in the light of statute 75. I am afraid, this argument on the side of the petitioner can be accepted at this stage. It is an admitted position that there is no challenge against the judgment in W.P(C) No.29134/2014 (Ext.P24) and right of parties are restored status quo ante before proposing to impose punishment and with liberty to the management to serve fresh charges on the petitioner. Therefore, in the light of the judgment, the petitioner cannot contend that management should have adverted to the statute 75 before proceeding further. In the light of the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 29134/2014 this argument of the petitioner is repelled.
5. The Next question to be considered is whether the charges are vague or indefinite. The charge is essentially allegation of facts. Whether the factual allegation would constitute 'misconduct', so as to make the charge of definite nature, is a matter which requires enquiry. This court invoking judicial review under Article 226, ordinarily is not called upon to probe with such fact finding. The question whether the charge is a definite or not has to be raised by the petitioner before the enquiry officer. It is for the enquiry officer
