Kerala High Court
Lt.Col.Pankajakshan.K. (Retd) vs The National Institute Of Technology, ... on 3 November, 2022
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 32400 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
LT.COL.PANKAJAKSHAN.K. (RETD),
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O.LATE K.C.PADMANABHAN NAIR,
PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT 'LAKSHMI NIVAS',
PANNIYANNUR POST, THALASSERY,
KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 671.
BY ADV V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT,
CALICUT P.O. 673 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
2 THE REGISTRAR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
CALICUT.673 001.
3 THE CHAIRPERSON, BOARD OF GOVERNORS,
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT 673 001.
4 UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
EDUCATION (HIGHER EDUCATION), UNION OF INDIA, NEW
DELHI. 110 001.
BY ADV GIRISH KUMAR V
SRI.MANU S - DSGI
SRI.SHYAM PADMAN-SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No. 32400 of 2022
:2:
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
=========================
W.P.(C).No. 32400 of 2022
==========================
Dated this the 03rd November, 2022
JUDGMENT
The petitioner impugns Ext.P21, through which the competent Authority of the "National Institute of Technology", Calicut (NIT), has rejected his representation, saying that he did not produce the documents which were called for through Ext.P16 notice, dated 05.11.2021. The petitioner asserts that when Ext.P16 was received, he replied through Ext.P17, saying that all the documents mentioned in the former are already in possession of the NIT, and that he had attached the details of his pay fixation, to avoid further controversy. He says that in spite of this, Ext.P21 accuses him of not having furnished the requested details, thus rejecting his representation / application.
2. Sri.Ramkumar Nambiar - learned counsel for the petitioner, further explained that the contents of Ext.P21 can never be found to be true because, after his client preferred Ext.P17 reply, he was called for a personal hearing through Ext.P19, in which there was W.P.(C) No. 32400 of 2022 :3: no such imputation at all. He asserted that, therefore, what has been stated in Ext.P21 is only an after thought, with an intent to frustrate his client's legitimate claims.
3. Sri.Shyam Padman - learned Standing Counsel for the NIT, however, in response, submitted that his client had no other option but to issue Ext.P21 - even though they were willing to consider the claims of the petitioner in spite of the huge delay caused by him -
since he had refused to co-operate and had not made available the documents called for from him through Ext.P16. He submitted that, in such circumstances, the action of the NIT, as reflected in Ext.P21, was inevitable; and that only the petitioner is to bear the blame for this.
4. Even when I hear the learned counsel for the parties on the factual disputation as afore, the fact remains that, what really required is to have the legitimate claims of the petitioner considered in terms of law. He says that though he was asked to produce certain documents through Ext.P16, it was replied saying that same is with the NIT itself and that he furnished the details of pay fixation, along with it. As rightly argued by Sri.Ramkumar Nambiar, if any further documents were necessary, it ought to have been asked from him; but instead of doing so, Ext.P19 notice for W.P.(C) No. 32400 of 2022 :4: hearing was issued, which has now culminated in Ext.P21, making an imputation that he did not produce all the documents.
5. Obviously, therefore, the entire matter will required to be reconsidered by the competent Authority of the NIT, with an opportunity being given to the petitioner, of not merely hearing, but also producing all relevant documents.
Resultantly, I allow this writ petition and set aside Ext.P21;
with a consequential direction to the competent Authority of the NIT to rehear the petitioner, after affording him an opportunity of producing all relevant documents, as has been requested in Ext.P16, or explaining why it cannot be produced; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Needless to say, until such time as the afore exercise is completed and the resultant order communicated to the petitioner, all action for recovery of money against him, will stand deferred.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE anm W.P.(C) No. 32400 of 2022 :5: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32400/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RECRUITMENT NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT FOR THE POST OF REGISTRAR ALONG WITH THE ELIGIBILITY CONDITION.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 26.9.2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT OF SERVICE ENTERED INTO BY THE PETITIONER AND THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 17.10.2016. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 17.10.2016. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER FOR DDG RTD (STATES), HEAD QUARTERS RECRUITING ZONE, CHENNAI DATED 15.10.2016.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 22.11.2016 ALONG WITH THE EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE 33RD MEETING OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT HELD ON 21.11.2016.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 13.4.1988 ISSUED BY THE JOINT SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN E.SREEDHARAN VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS IN W.P(C)NO.2356/2002 DATED 5.12.2008. Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.9.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE "NOTE" TO THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR DATED 20.11.2017 ALONG WITH THE EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE 39TH MEETING OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNOR.
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, NIT, CALICUT DATED 5.2.2018 ALONG WITH THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 5.2.2018 TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION.
W.P.(C) No. 32400 of 2022 :6:Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE CHAIRPERSON, BOARD OF GOVERNORS, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT DATED 10.9.2021. Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 23.9.2021 BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P(C)NO.21239/2021 DATED 6.10.2021.
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 1.11.2021 BY E-MAIL TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT DATED 5.11.2021 ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT P-15. Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT.
Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 25.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT AND SIGNED ON 26.11.2021.
Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL SENT BY THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT DATED 1.1.2022.
Exhibit P20 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CON. CASE (C) NO.545/2022 DATED 14.6.2022.
Exhibit P21 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER DATED 6.6.2022 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT.
Exhibit P22 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 14.9.2022 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR ALONG WITH THE OFFICE ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT DATED 14.9.2022. Exhibit P23 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 9.10.2022 TO EXHIBIT P-
22.RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL