Disciplinary charges must be clear and precise to uphold fairness; punitive measures not outlined in governing statutes are impermissible.

JUDGMENT :

N. NAGARESH, J.

1. The petitioner, who has been working in the Sacred Heart College (Autonomous), Thevara, Kochi and who has about 12 years of service, is challenging Ext.P3 order of suspension and Ext.P12 order of termination issued by the 5^th respondent-Manager.

2. The petitioner states that she was issued with Ext.P3 notice of suspension dated 03.05.2024 in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner would urge that enquiry was proceeded with without even issuing a formal charge sheet. The respondents refused to sanction and pay subsistence allowance. The charges levelled against the petitioner in the suspension order were vague and was not accompanied by the statement of the allegation on which each charge is framed.

3. The petitioner was not provided with copies of relevant documents. The petitioner was not permitted to effectively cross-examine the witnesses. A student, who filed complaint against the petitioner was included in the College level grievance redressal committee, at whose instance the suspension order was issued. Exts.P3 and P12 are therefore vitiated.

4. After the enquiry, the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of “termination”, which is not a punishment permissible under the University statutes. The punishment imposed on the petitioner is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offence alleged. Exts.P3 and 12 orders are therefore liable to be set aside.

5. The counsel for the petitioner urged that though there is a statutory alternate remedy of filing appeal before the Tribunal under Section 63 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, the writ petition is maintainable since there are gross statutory violations. The counsel relied on a judgment of this Court in V.M. Karunakaran v. Zamorin Raja of Calicut and others, 2019 (4) KLT 244 and argued that to ask the employee to defend himself against a general allegation of misconduct without specification of particulars denies to him and effective right of defending himself. The entire disciplinary proceedings are therefore vitiated.

6. The 3^rd respondent-University filed a statement. The 3^rd respondent stated that the order of suspension served on the petitioner was communicated to the University. The suspension was extended until 10.01.2025 as the enquiry proceedings were going on. The Manager's communication regarding the termination of the petitioner was reported to the Syndicate meeting held on 30.06.2025. As per Section 63 (6) Chapter VIII of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985, the petitioner is entitled to file an appeal before the appellate Tribunal.

7. Respondents 5 and 6 resisted the writ petition. Respondents 5 and 6 submitted that several complaints were received against the petitioner from students and fellow Teachers. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which the petitioner submitted reply. Thereafter, Ext.P3 charge sheet was issued elucidating the charges against the petitioner.

8. The petitioner was given sufficient time to file reply to the charge sheet. Copies of witness list, document list and documents were supplied to the petitioner. Witnesses examined by the management were cross- examined. The petitioner did not examine any witness on her side. Enquiry proceedings were concluded and argument notes were submitted. The domestic enquiry was conducted strictly following the principles of natural justice and the petitioner participated in the enquiry. The writ petition is therefore without any merit.

9. As regards issuance of charge sheet, respondents 5 and 6 submitted that though Ext.P