IMPORTANT POINT
The authority must provide an opportunity for hearing before making decisions affecting the rights of an employee in disciplinary matters.

JUDGMENT :

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P7 order issued by the 1st respondent and for a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to treat the period of suspension from 9.9.2016 to 31.05.2018 as duty for all purposes with all consequential benefits.

2. The petitioner is a retired Assistant Registrar (Exams) in the 2nd respondent University, who retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2018 while in suspension. By Ext.P1, the 3rd respondent passed an order compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service and also directing to recover an amount of Rs.19,70,791/- with interest from the pensionary benefits equally from the delinquent officers. An appeal was preferred challenging Ext.P1 order before the 1st respondent Chancellor and the said respondent set aside Ext.P1 order granting liberty to the 2nd respondent University to recommend and continue the disciplinary proceedings. Later, by Ext.P2 order the very same punishment imposed on the petitioner as per Ext.P1 was imposed, which was challenged by the petitioner before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent essentially taking into consideration the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the disciplinary proceedings are being dragged from 2016 onwards and that the petitioner has since attained the age of superannuation and the ends of justice require that a quietus is made to the proceedings so that he can get his retirement benefits and on the suggestion by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that even if the allegation against the petitioner is found to be sustainable the appellant is only liable for imposition of a minor penalty, took a lenient view and by Ext.P3 order modified the punishment imposed on the petitioner as withholding of one increment without cumulative effect and directed the University to issue appropriate orders modifying the punishment. By Ext.P4 order the 2nd respondent modified the punishment to that of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect and directed to treat the period of suspension from 9.9.2016 to 31.05.2018 as eligible leave. Petitioner again represented before the University aggrieved by the treating of the period of suspension as eligible leave, and the same was repelled by the University as per Ext.P5. Against which the petitioner approached the 1st respondent by filing Ext.P6 and the 1st respondent rejected the request of the petitioner on finding that treating the period of suspension from 9.9.2016 to 31.05.2018 as eligible leave appears to be in order. It is in the said circumstance, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that except withholding of one increment, no other stigma can be imposed on the petitioner and naturally the period during which the petitioner was kept out of service illegally should be treated as duty for all purposes. It is further contended that when the 1st respondent passed an order modifying the penalty and held that the petitioner is entitled for consequential benefits the respondent University has no authority to sit over Ext.P3 order and find that the petitioner's period of suspension should be treated as eligible leave and ought to have treated as duty for all purposes. It is further contended that Ext.P7 order violates principles of natural justice as the same is issued in violation of Rule 56 of Part I KSR.

4. The 2nd respondent University has filed a detailed counter affidavit contended that the issuance of Ext.P7 order is perfectly legal and valid and no interference is called for. It is contended that even as per Ext.P3 order of the Chancellor, the petitioner has not been fully exonerated and the punishment of a major penalty of compulsory retirement imposed was modified to that of barring of one annual increment without cumulative effect. Since the petitioner has not been fully exonerated he cannot claim that the