Jurisdiction of Human Rights Commission does not extend to service matters; disciplinary actions must conform to proportionality.

J U D G M E N T

Soumen Sen, C.J Demeaning a person in front of his colleagues by using abusive language for which a complaint was raised had gathered dust before steps were taken by the competent authority to transfer the petitioner, which has figured in the proceedings initiated before the Kerala State Human Rights Commission.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Kerala State Human Rights Commission, in entertaining and admitting the petition of the 1^st respondent, has exceeded its jurisdiction and could not have entertained a matter which squarely falls within the realm of service jurisprudence, relying upon the decision of this Court in Malabar Cements Ltd. v. K.Baburajan and Others .¹ The learned counsel would persuade us to select few sentences from the said judgment to upset the order passed by the judicial member of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission. We are assured that the learned counsel does not dispute that the facts

1 2019 (4)KHC 431

Malabar Cements Ltd. case in (supra) are different from the facts which compelled the Human Rights Commission to make such an observation, which could be prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner if future proceedings are initiated against him for his conduct that had resulted in his transfer. Before the Human Rights Commission, the derogatory remark made was: ‘If you plant a pumpkin seed, it will never sprout in an ash gourd.’ The complaint remained pending before the Departmental Head.

3. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Human Rights Commission as he believed that such remarks in front of other colleagues were not only demeaning, but also defamatory. The Human Rights Commission, before taking up the issue in its proper perspective, noticed that on the basis of such complaint the Departmental Head had transferred the petitioner, and accordingly disposed of the petition with the following observation “After considering the facts of the case and the relating documents and after evaluating the version of both the parties in the hearing, the Commission is convinced that the behaviour of the opposite party has caused loss of his pride, mental torture by which his right to work with dignity has lost. Not only that, it has specifically come out from the proceedings of the Director of Training, Department of Industrial Training dated 21.12.2024 that the principal is not having any consideration to treat the colleagues as human beings who do have feelings and thoughts. It is pointed out to the opposite party, the Principal that the superior authority should not show a feudal attitude towards the employees working under him, but should treat them as human beings and follow such steps to protect their human right as envisaged in the constitution and Human Rights Protection Acts. Commission is convinced that in these type of complaints it is because of the inordinate delay caused from the part of the head of the department in taking timely action, the complainant was forced to approach the Human Rights Commission. In the circumstance that since the departmental disciplinary proceedings has been taken, this commission is not recommending any further proceedings. But, in case if the opposite party repeat such type of activities the commission directs the Director of Training to initiate very stringent and exemplary action against him.”

4. The Human Rights Commission, having considered the steps already taken, observed that it is not recommending any further proceedings. In contrast, the matter in issue in Malabar Cements Ltd. case (supra), is pertaining to the appointment of a Mazdoor in a company. Obviously the Commission had no jurisdiction to decide whether the Mazdoor has been denied appointment or any service benefits, as the matter falls within the exclusive domain of the c