The authority of an Administrator appointed by a court to conduct disciplinary proceedings is upheld, despite claims of jurisdiction and delayed processes, as long as statutory timelines do not affect the fundamental authority exercised.

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The petitioner, who is working as Assistant Professor in Botany in the Iqbal College, Peringamala, seeks to declare that the 1^st respondent-Administrator is not entitled to continue any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner after 28.07.2024 in view of Ext.P4 and hence Exts.P6 and P10 are illegal.

2. The petitioner states that he was appointed in the College on 18.06.2020. The petitioner detected malpractices in examination by three students. When enquiry was started against the students, certain staff members turned against the petitioner. The petitioner was suspended as per Ext.P1 order dated 20.02.2024. A Teacher cannot be kept under suspension by the educational agency except when disciplinary proceedings are initiated in view of Section 60 (2) of the Kerala University Act . No disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner.

3. A charge memo was issued only on 28.02.2024 after the suspension. Hence, Ext.P1 is illegal. Enquiry proceedings are to be completed within three months as per Section 60 (4). The proceedings were not concluded within three months and hence the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation dated 20.05.2024 requesting to revoke the suspension. The 1strespondent, on the other hand, submitted a request before the 3rdrespondent seeking extension of period for completing the enquiry. The 3rdrespondent issued Ext.P4 order dated 29.06.2024 directing to complete the whole procedure within one month.

4. The petitioner states that the proceedings were not completed within one month and therefore further proceedings are illegal and without any jurisdiction. The 1^st respondent is debarred from proceeding ahead with the disciplinary action. The petitioner was reinstated in service as per order dated 03.08.2024 as per Ext.P5.

5. On receipt of enquiry report, the 1^st respondent issued a show-cause notice proposing to withhold two increments with cumulative effect as per Ext.P6 proceeding dated 23.09.2024. The petitioner submitted Ext.P7 reply. The petitioner states that the term of members of the Trust Board and Executive Committee of the College has already expired. The 1^st respondent was appointed as Administrator. The Administrator is appointed as a stopgap arrangement. He cannot go ahead with the disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner therefore seeks to set aside Exts.P6 and P10. 6. The 1^st respondent filed a counter affidavit.

The 1^st respondent stated that a Scheme suit in respect of the College Trust was decreed on 13.04.2007 and was modified on 21.08.2012 and a Scheme was finalised. The Trust is functioning as per the Scheme settled by the Court. The term of the then existing Board expired on 21.05.2022. hence, the District Court appointed the 1^st respondent as Administrator. The competency of the 1^st respondent to continue as Administrator was the subject matter in W.P.(C) No.2278/2024. This Court, by judgment dated 23.09.2024, upheld the competency of the 1^st respondent. There is no rule mandating that suspension can be made only after issue of charge memo. The non-completion of enquiry within the stipulated time will not result in discharge or acquitted of the accused. The writ petition is without any merit and it is liable to be dismissed, contended the 1^st respondent.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3.

8. The petitioner is working as Assistant Professor in the Iqubal College Trust, presently managed by the 1^st respondent-Administrator. The petitioner was suspended on 20.02.2024 as per Ext.