Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J.
M. B. Faisal s/o. Beerankutty – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala Represented By Its Secretary To Government - Respondent
WP(C) NO. 31672 OF 2024
Decided on : 18-05-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction to writ petitions by syndicate members challenging chancellor's order reinstating employee after disciplinary action. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. factual background of tenders, lan installation irregularities, and huge financial loss to university due to 6th respondent's actions. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. sequence of vigilance enquiry, disciplinary proceedings, suspension, enquiry report, syndicate punishment, and chancellor's appellate order. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. contentions on maintainability, locus standi, and propriety of challenging chancellor's order by university components. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. statutory provisions under calicut university act and statutes on university authorities, chancellor powers, syndicate powers and appellate procedure. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 6. key principle that quasi-judicial authorities like syndicate cannot challenge superior appellate orders by chancellor due to hierarchy and judicial discipline. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 7. analysis of 'aggrieved person' test and that syndicate members lack locus standi to challenge appellate orders. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 8. scope of judicial review limited to decision-making process, not re-appreciation of evidence in disciplinary matters. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60) |
| 9. conclusion dismissing writ petitions with directions for vigilance investigation and recovery of loss to university. (Para 61 , 62) |
JUDGMENT :
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J.
1. Both these writ petitions are filed by the members of the Syndicate of the University of Calicut, the 4th respondent in WP(C)No.31672/2024, which is the 3rd respondent in WP(C) No.40998/2024. The grievances highlighted by the petitioners in these writ petitions are in respect of the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Syndicate against the 6th respondent in both the writ petitions, who was working as the Instrumentation Engineer in the University.
2. On culmination of the disciplinary enquiry, the Syndicate passed an order, finding the 6th respondent guilty of all the charges laid against him and also imposed with a punishment of reversion to the post of Junior Engineer for a period of five years. Since it was found that, the actions of the 6th respondent caused loss to the University to the tune of Rs.27,42,116/-, it was ordered to recover the said amount from the said person. However, on the appeals submitted by the 6th respondent, the said order was set aside by the Chancellor of the University, and directed reinstatement of the 6th respondent with all consequential benefits, as if, the said respondent was continuing as Instrumentation Engineer. The petitioners are aggrieved by the said decision and also aggrieved by the non-implementation of the decision taken by the Syndicate, to challenge the order passed by the Chancellor by filing a writ petition before this Court. (WP(C)No.31672/2024 is treated as the leading case and the parties as well as the Exhibits are referred to in this judgment, as described in the said writ petition, unless otherwise specifically mentioned.)
3. The facts that led to the filing of these writ petitions are as follows: The 6th respondent was working as the Instrumentation Engineer at the University Science and Instrumentation Centre (USIC) of the Calicut University. Earlier, the University issued a tender notice on 4.6.2013 for installation of Local Area Network (LAN) for connecting various offices of the University as per Ext.P1. In the said tender notice, the rate of cable required for completing the work, was to be specified in ‘meters’, whereas, for the consumables required for such installation as specified in Part D.5 of Ext.P1, the rate was to be indicated in 'lot'. In response to the said tender notice, six bids were received and the 6th respondent in his capacity as the Instrumentation Engineer, evaluated the
A quasi-judicial authority forming part of a statutory body corporate cannot challenge the appellate order of the Chancellor, its head and superior authority, except in cases of patent illegality or ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of Section 17(16) and (17) of the act of 1998 and the determination of the maintainability of the petitioner's....
Dismissal of an employee without a fair inquiry violates natural justice principles and statutory provisions, making the writ petition maintainable despite alternative remedies.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a disciplinary authority, such as the Executive Council, exercises quasi-judicial function and lacks the authority to review its own decision ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings rested with the Executive Council (EC) as the Competent Authority, and in the absence of delega....
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings, ruling that failure to provide necessary documents and cross-examination opportunities inv....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
