Back
1996 Supreme(Ker) 476
High Court of Kerala
T.V. Ramakrishnan, Jacob Benjamin Koshy, JJ.
Viswamithran - Appellant
Versus
Manager S N College & Ors - Respondent
C.R.P. No. 1256 of 1992
Decided On : 07-11-1996
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific and precise charges in disciplinary proceedings, the obligation to inform the accused of the exact charges levelled against them, and the duty of the enquiry officer to act judicially.
Headnote:
Natural Justice - Disciplinary Proceedings - Charges Vague and Not Specific - Kerala University (Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of non teaching staff) First Statutes, 1979 - Charges framed against the petitioner were vague and not specific. Memo of allegations as required under the rules were not attached to the charge sheet. Enquiry conducted without causing any prejudice to the charge sheeted employee. Violation of a mandatory rule contained in Statute 71(2). Charges involving consequences of termination of service must be specific. Fair hearing presupposes that charges are clearly communicated so that the employee can understand the charges and effectively meet them. Disciplinary enquiry has to be a quasi judicial enquiry held according to the principles of natural justice and the enquiry officer has a duty to act judicially. Findings of the enquiry officer were perverse. Misconducts as charge sheeted were not proved. Charges were vague and not specific. Compulsory retirement is a major punishment as provided in the Statutes. Disciplinary proceedings taken against the petitioner are not sustainable.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on him by the Calicut University Appellate Tribunal. The charges against the petitioner were related to misappropriation and negligence of duties. The petitioner denied the charges and raised several grounds to challenge the punishment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charges against the petitioner were vague and not specific. The court held that the charges were not proved and the findings of the enquiry officer were perverse. The court concluded that the disciplinary proceedings taken against the petitioner were not sustainable and set aside the Tribunal's judgment confirming the disciplinary action. The punishment imposed on the petitioner was also set aside, and the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included the vagueness and lack of specificity of the charges, violation of the principles of natural justice in the disciplinary proceedings, and the correctness of the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of specific and precise charges in disciplinary proceedings and the obligation to inform the accused of the exact charges levelled against them. The court also highlighted the requirement for a fair hearing and the duty of the enquiry officer to act judicially. Additionally, the court emphasized that an employee charged with one misconduct cannot be punished for another misconduct, even if that misconduct is proved in the course of enquiry proceedings.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Revision Petition, set aside the Tribunal's judgment confirming the disciplinary action, and ordered the reinstatement of the petitioner with all consequential benefits. The court also stated that the parties should bear their own costs.
J.B. Koshy, J.
1. This Revision Petition was filed challenging the correctness of the judgment of the Calicut University Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 6 of 1991 affirming the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the petitioner. Petitioner joined the service of the 1st respondent College as an Attender on 15.7.1965. He was subsequently promoted to the grade of Lower Division Clerk on 1.6.1971 and to the grade of Upper Division Accountant on 3.3.1983 and was further promoted to the grade of Head Accountant with effect from 25.9.1984. A charge memo dated 26.5.1989 was served on the petitioner by the 1st respondent requiring him to submit his explanation. The charges levelled against the petitioner were as follows:
"1. Fees have been collected from the students without issuing proper receipts and the collections have not been accounted properly. The relevant accounts and registers have also not been maintained up to date inspite of repeated instructions. Though he has been continuing in the same college as Head Accountant since 3.3.1983, he did not care to carry out his work promptly and systematically. The above conduct of his is a clear violation of the rules and negligence of duties and responsibilities entrusted with him.
2. A sum of Rs. 8,258-25 (tuition fee Rs. 7,311-25 and special fee Rs. 947/-) collected during 1983 - 84, 1984 - 85 and 1985 - 86 has been remitted only in 9/1987 and 1/1988, that too, after detecting the same in internal checking. This amounts to misappropriation of Government money.
3. Tuition fee, Library fine and laboratory fine amounting to Rs. 36,982-05 are seen to have been defalcated during the years 1982 - 83 to 1987 - 88 for which he also seems guilty.
4. His above said action is highly irregular and quite unbecoming on the part of a Head Accountant for which he deserves drastic disciplinary action."
He submitted an explanation stating that the charges are vague and not specific and no details have been mentioned therein. It is also stated that memo of allegations as required under the rules were not attached to the charge memo. He also denied the charges. He submitted that one Somarajan, U. D. Accountant who was also charge sheeted was entrusted with the duty of collecting cash and he is not a party to the misappropriation. An advocate practising in Kollam was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. He has modified the charges levelled against the petitioner as follows:
"1. As the Head Accountant, you have collected the fees from the students without issuing proper receipts and the collections have not been accounted properly. The relevant records were not maintained properly.
2. A sum of Rs. 8,258-25 collected during the period 1983 - 84, 1984 - 85 and 1985 - 86 was misappropriated and later remitted during September 1987 and January 1988.
3. Rs. 36,982-05 collected in the account of tuition fees, Library fine and laboratory fine have been defalcated during the period 1982 - 83 to 1987 - 88.
4. Your above said action, omissions and negligence are highly irregular and quite unbecoming as the Head Accountant of the college." An enquiry was conducted. In the enquiry, the Enquiry officer found that charge Nos. l, 2 and 4 are proved. After issuing a second show cause notice proposing punishments and after getting the explanations, punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed on him. An appeal was filed before the University Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The above judgment is challenged in this Revision Petition.
2. It is submitted that the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal is perverse and apparently illegal. The following grounds are urged by the petitioner to challenge the punishment of compulsory retirement:
(i) Charges framed against him are vague and not specific;
(ii) Memo of allegations as required under the rules were not attached to the charge sheet. Therefore details of the charge sheet were not given to him and since this is a mandatory rule, on that ground its
