Inter-university teacher transfer requires written request from teacher; court sets aside directive without it.

ORDER

Muralee Krishna, J.

This revision petition is filed by the appellant in University Appeal No.5 of 2019 before the Calicut University Appellate Tribunal and Additional District Court-III Thiruvananthapuram (the ‘Tribunal’ for short), challenging the judgment dated 09.02.2022 passed by the Tribunal in that appeal. For convenience of reference, the parties are referred to in this order as they are referred to in the impugned judgment of the Tribunal.

2. The brief facts that led to the filing of this revision petition are as follows:

The appellant is a Teacher of Sreekrishnapuram V.T Bhattathiripad College, Mannampatta, Palakkad. On 23.12.2015 MW3, the Head of the Department of Computer Science of the College received Annexure A10 complaint dated 23.12.2015 from MW2, the additional 4^th respondent herein who is another Teacher in the Department of Computer Science of the College, alleging that on 11.12.2015 at about 9.15 p.m at the computer lab of the Department of Computer Science of the College, the appellant assaulted MW2 with the intent to outrage her modesty, and it had caused emotional distress and mental agony of MW2. MW3 forwarded the said complaint to MW5, the Principal of the College. MW5 submitted the said complaint to MW6, the 1^st respondent, Manager of the College. On receipt of the said complaint, MW6 directed MW1, the Assistant Manager of the College, to conduct a preliminary inquiry and to submit a report. Accordingly, MW1 conducted a preliminary enquiry and submitted a report to MW6 based on which MW6 suspended the appellant from service as per Annexure A6 order dated 28.12.2015, and issued a show cause notice to the appellant, calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be proceeded against for the commission of the offence alleged in Ext.M2 complaint filed by MW2. To that show cause notice, the appellant submitted Ext.M15 reply dated 16.01.2017. Thereafter, MW6 framed charge against the appellant, finding that a prima facie case is made out against the appellant, and the explanation offered by him is not satisfactory. The copy of the charge, along with the statement of allegations, was served on the appellant.

2.1. On 19.03.2014, the appellant submitted his statement of defence before MW6. Thereupon, the 2^nd respondent appointed an Advocate as Enquiry Officer to conduct a formal enquiry into the charges levelled against the appellant. Before the Enquiry Officer, MWs 1 to 6 were examined from the side of the management and Exts.M1 to M32(a), M33(a), M34 to M36 documents were marked. The appellant gave evidence as DW1 and marked Exts.D1 to D12 documents. After completion of the enquiry, the report was submitted to the 2^nd respondent, finding the appellant guilty of the charges. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent imposed a penalty of removal from service on the appellant after complying with the procedural formalities prescribed for imposing a major penalty.

2.2. The appellant challenged the said order by filing Annexure A26 memorandum of appeal before the Tribunal. The said appeal was disposed of as per Annexure A27 judgment dated 30.11.2018 of the Tribunal. The appellant took up that judgment in revision before this Court. This Court, by Annexure A28 judgment dated 25.03.2018 , set aside the order of the disciplinary authority conditionally and directed the enquiry authority to give the appellant an opportunity to examine the witnesses enlisted by him. In compliance with the directions in Annexure A28 judgment, the enquiry authority examined the witnesses cited by the appellant. From the side of the management, Exts.