Procedural violations in disciplinary inquiries affecting natural justice necessitate judicial review and potential intervention.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna S., J.

Respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.(C)No.5502 of 2006 filed this writ appeal under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 , challenging the judgment dated 13.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. The 1st respondent, while working as an Administrative Officer in the same grade of Section Officer in the University College of Teacher Education, Thodupuzha, which is affiliated to the Mahatma Gandhi University (‘the University’ in short), was suspended from service by Ext.P1 order dated 11.10.2002 on the basis of Ext.P2 investigation report submitted by the Chief Vigilance Officer of the University. The allegation against the 1^st respondent was pertaining to forging of B.Com mark list and the provisional certificate given to one Mr.Ramesh. Based on the said report, an inquiry was conducted against the 1^st respondent. According to the 1^st respondent, in the enquiry, no evidence was adduced against the 1^st respondent by any independent witnesses to prove the charges framed against him. Charges 1 and 3, which are the main charges, were not proved in the disciplinary enquiry.

Charge No.2 is stated to have been proved based on the version given by the main delinquent, Mr.Purushothaman. Mr. Purushothaman was not a witness in the disciplinary enquiry. But Mr.Purushothaman's version, before the Chief Vigilance Officer, contained in Ext.P2 is sought to be proved by examining the Chief Vigilance Officer. Further, by examining the Chief Vigilance Officer, the version given by the 1^st respondent, Mr. Ramesh and Mr.Anwar wrongly recorded in Ext.P2 is sought to be proved and based on that, the finding of guilt was recorded. The delinquents were examined by the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer. Hence, the enquiry was conducted in violation of all principles of natural justice. For finding guilt against the 1^st respondent, the hearsay information given by the Chief Vigilance Officer alone was relied by the enquiry officer. For finding the 1^st respondent guilty, even the hearsay information given by him in the enquiry is recorded. For this reason Ext.P8 Enquiry Report is illegal and liable to be set aside. No other material except Ext.P8 Enquiry Report is stated in Ext.P13 to find the 1^st respondent guilty of the charges. Hence, the finding of guilt against the 1^st respondent is in violation of all principles of natural justice. Against Ext.P13 order, though an appeal was filed pointing out the specific grounds which were directed to be considered by this Court, the 3^rd respondent dismissed the appeal without stating any reason by a non-speaking order. Hence, at every stage, the principles of natural justice were violated. Hence, the 1^st respondent’s dismissal from service is illegal and liable to be set aside. With these pleadings, the 1^st respondent filed W.P.(C)No.5502 of 2006 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Ext.P8, to the extent it concerns the petitioner, Exts.P13 and P16 and quashing the same.

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order declaring that the procedure adopted by the 4^th respondent in conducting enquiry against the petitioner and finding the petitioner guilty of Charge No. 2 and based on that Charges 4, 5 and 6, are illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice.

iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order asking respondents 1 to 3 to reinstate the petitioner in service with effect