Suspension of a teacher without initiating disciplinary proceedings is illegal, but ongoing inquiries conducted under statute provisions can validate the suspension.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna, J.

The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.9954 of 2024 filed W.A.No.117 of 2025 under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 21.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition. The 2^nd respondent, Manager of the College wherein the appellant in W.A. No.117 of 2025 is working as an Assistant Professor, filed W.A.No.326 of 2025 challenging the very same judgment, but on some other grounds. Since the points to be decided in these writ appeals are interconnected, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience of reference, the parties and documents are referred to in this judgment as they are referred to in W.A. No.117 of 2025, unless otherwise stated.

2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the appellant is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Malayalam at Farook College under the management of the 2^nd respondent. The appellant was suspended from service by Ext.P1 order dated 14.02.2020 issued by the 2^nd respondent in pursuance of Ext.P7 complaint dated 13.02.2020, alleging sexual harassment, received from the 4^th respondent, a student of the College, through the Principal on 13.02.2020. The appellant contends that he was suspended by the 2^nd respondent without any disciplinary proceedings, which renders the suspension order itself illegal, being the one issued in violation of Section 60(2) of the Calicut University Act , 1975, (‘the Act’ in short), which says that no Teacher of a private college shall be kept under suspension by the educational agency except when disciplinary proceedings are initiated against him. The appellant further contends that he has been kept under suspension for more than 3 years without reporting to the Vice-Chancellor the reason for suspension, which is violative of Section 60(3) of the Act.

2.1. The appellant pleads that, as per Section 60(4) of the Act, the disciplinary proceedings had to be completed within a period of three months from the date of suspension or within such further period as may be allowed by the Vice-Chancellor after hearing the parties concerned. The order or direction issued by the Vice-Chancellor granting time beyond three months is appealable under Section 60(5) of the Act, before the Appellate Tribunal. The appellant was not served with the order of the 1^st respondent granting time for completing the disciplinary proceedings, and as such, he could not challenge the same, invoking the provisions under Section 60(5) of the Act.

2.2. The appellant further states that he submitted Ext.P9 representation dated 04.08.2021 before the 2^nd respondent to modify or revoke the order of suspension. Thereafter, the appellant approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.22760 of 2021 seeking a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider Ext.P9 and pass orders reinstating him in service. By Ext.P10 judgment dated 27.10.2021, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the 2^nd respondent to decide Ext.P9 representation in accordance with law within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of that judgment. Though Ext.P10 was forwarded to the 2^nd respondent on 17.11.2021 and a hearing w