Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 20657
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. B. Suresh Kumar, C.S. Sudha, JJ
DR. R.SURESH, – Appellant
Versus
THE CHAIRMAN, ATHURASRAMAM N.S.S.HOMEO MEDICAL COLLEGE, – Respondent
WA/366/2022
SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL ASWATHY BABU, SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY (B/O), SC PETER JOSE CHRISTO N.SANTHA V.VARGHESE S.A.ANAND K.N.REMYA L.ANNAPOORNA VISHNU V.K.ABHIRAMI K. UDAY KURUVILLA SABU CHRISTY SURIN GEORGE IPE SREEKUMAR P.B.VINITHA, Sr.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
Disciplinary penalties may be interpreted as temporary unless explicitly stated to be permanent in the governing statutes.
Headnote:
Disciplinary Action - Teacher's Eligibility - Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 - Sections 63, 99; Statutes 35 B, 73 - The court determined the applicability of different statutes regarding disciplinary action and concluded that disciplinary reductions are not inherently permanent unless specified.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a lecturer, challenged a disciplinary order reducing his seniority, claiming the decision was illegal as it was based on an irrelevant statute for non-teachers instead of the applicable provisions for teachers in private colleges.
Issues: Is the penalty of reduction in rank permanent or for a period specified by the applicable statutes?
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that when no specific duration is mentioned for a disciplinary penalty under the applicable statute, it defaults to a period of six months, implying that any lack of clarity on the permanence of the penalty allows for its review after this period.
Final Decision: The writ appeal is dismissed as lacking merit.
J U D G M E N T
C.S.Sudha, J.
This writ appeal is against the judgment dated 15/02/2022 in W.P.
(C)No.22745/2021. The appellant is the petitioner and the respondents herein, the respondents in the writ appeal. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the writ petition.
2. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P22 order by which Exts.P18 and P19 representations of the petitioner for restoration of his seniority as well as disbursement of arrears has been rejected. The petitioner, a Lecturer in Community Medicine in the College of the first respondent, as per Ext.P12 order of the first respondent was imposed with a major penalty of reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list as junior most lecturer in the Department of Community Medicine in the College. According to the petitioner, Ext.P22 order of the first respondent to the extent it pertains to the non-restoration of his seniority is per se illegal, irregular and arbitrary. The representations of the petitioner were considered by the first respondent based on Chapter 4 Statute 35 B of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997 (the Statutes). Chapter 4 pertains to the terms and conditions of service of the non-teaching staff of the University other than University teachers. The petitioner is a teacher in a private college and hence Statute 35 B in Chapter 4 is not applicable to the petitioner. Disciplinary action against the teachers of private colleges come under Statute 73 of Chapter 45 of the Statues. Therefore the first respondent ought to have taken a decision based on Statute 73 of Chapter 45. As per the said provision, there is no stipulation that reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list is permanent in nature. Therefore the first respondent is not justified in considering Exts.P18 and P19 request of the petitioner for restoration of seniority.
2.1. It is settled law that as long as no period is stipulated in the order imposing the punishment of reduction to a lower rank in the seniority, the same cannot operate for an indefinite period, on the other hand it would stand restricted to a period of six months. The petitioner is thus entitled to get his seniority restored to its original position, on expiry of six months of the order imposing the punishment and to get further promotion to the post of Professor. Hence, the writ petition, seeking quashing of Ext.P22 ; a direction to the first respondent to restore the seniority of the petitioner to the original position he was holding at the time of imposition of punishment by way of Ext.P12 order and to grant him all consequential benefits including promotion to the petitioner.
3. The first respondent in their counter contends that the allegations raised by the petitioner are untenable. Statute 73 of Chapter 45 of the Statutes, does not say that reduction to a lower rank is for a specified period or that it can only be treated for a period of six months. It is true that Ext.P22 order has been passed relying on Statute 35 B(v) in Part III of Chapter 4 of the Statutes, which is not the relevant provision applicable to the petitioner herein. Further, if the reduction of rank in the seniority list is not made permanent, it would not have the effect of a punishment, contends the first respondent.
4. Heard Adv.Sajeev Kumar K.Gopal, the learned counsel for the appellant; Adv.Peter Jose Christo, the learned counsel for the first respondent and Ms.B.Vinita, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 2 and 3.
5. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the penalty of reduction in rank imposed as per Ext.P12 order is for a period of six months or whether it is permanent. For resolving the issue involved, we need to refer to the relevant provisions in the Mahatma Gandhi University Act , 1985 (the Act) and the Statutes. Section 63 of the Act deals with disciplinary powers of educational agency over teachers of private colleges. Clause (c) of sub-sec
