Kerala High Court
Sherlymole P.B vs Institute Of Human Resources ... on 8 February, 2021
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 19TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.28381 OF 2014(W)
PETITIONER/S:
SHERLYMOLE P.B.
W/O.JOHNSON PHILIP, EDACKAMANNIL HOUSE, GRACE
GARDEN,THRIKKAKARA P.O., KOCHI - 682 021 (ASSOCIATE
PROFESSOR(CHEMISTRY) MODEL ENGINEERING COLLEGE,
INSTITUTE OFHUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT,
THRIKKAKARA).
BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND
RESPONDENT/S:
1 INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
PRAJOE TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAMREPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR - 695
014.
2 THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
PRAJOETOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695 014
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
3 THE DIRECTOR
INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT,PRAJOE
TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695 014.
4 THE PRINCIPAL
MODEL ENGINEERING COLLEGE, INSTITUTE OF HUMANRESOURCE
DEVELOPMENT, THRIKKAKARA.
5 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENTSECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
R1 BY SRI.DEEPU THANKAN, SC, IHRD
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL
R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
08.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.28381 OF 2014(W)
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 8th day of February 2021 Challenge has been laid to Exts.P13 & P14 minutes of the executive committee whereby it was resolved, to initiate major penalty proceedings and consequential show cause notice issued by the 3rd respondent. The facts leading the present writ petition are as follows:
2. The petitioner while working as Lecturer in Chemistry at Model Engineering College, Institute of Human Resources Development, Thrikkakara, UGC pay package was introduced by respondent Nos.1 and 2 to Arts and Science faculties in engineering colleges with effect from 1.7.2006 onwards. Pursuant to the same, the post of lecturer was re-designated as Assistant Professor and the post of Assistant Professor was re-designated as Associate Professor.
While in service the Director of Institute vide Ext.P1 dated 8.10.2013 served memo of charges on the petitioner on the allegation of having not engaged in the duties in Semester 1 Bio Medical Class as per the time table stipulated by respondent No.4 and in that background of the matter, had issued a show cause notice of initiation of action as WP(C).No.28381 OF 2014(W) contemplated in Rule 15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960.
3. Sri. Subash Chand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that along with the memo, allegation of charges were also served. As per the Government Order dated 12.3.2012, the work load of an Associate Professor was specifically fixed at 14 hours per week. On the basis of the serving of memo of charges, the Department decided to follow procedure under Section 16 of the Rules for imposition of minor penalty and passed an order dated 8.1.2014 of censure and recovery from pay of the salary corresponding to duty hours during which she had allegedly abstained from duty. The aforementioned order was assailed by the petitioner filing a statutory appeal under Rule 23 of the Rules as evidenced from Ext.P7. Interim stay was passed, but in the meantime steps for recovery for salary was taken necessitating the petitioner to approach this Court vide W.P.(c)No.3251/2014. This Court vide judgment dated 4.2.2014 disposed of the writ petition and issued directions to the respondents to decide the appeal after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of two months. It was contended that the respondents have not adhered to the aforementioned directions, but called upon the petitioner to appear for personal hearing before the 3 rd respondent. The petitioner WP(C).No.28381 OF 2014(W) gave a detailed reply vide Ext.P10. The respondent No.3 after the personal hearing has directed respondent No.4 to implement Ext.P6 order and effect recovery from the salary of the petitioner. While so, petitioner filed a contempt of court proceedings against the respondent as Contempt Case (c) No.520/2014 and pending the said contempt of court proceedings, respondent No.3 had issued an order dated 4.6.2014 directing the 4 th respondent to refund the amount recovered from the salary of the petitioner. In view of the said order and taking into account the remorse expressed, the contempt case was closed. The impugned action of the respondents is not only absurd but malicious, arbitrary much less opaque which compelled the petitioner to approach this Court again. This Court vide interim order dated 29.10.2014 suspended Exts.P13 and P14.
4. Per contra learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that there had been a misunderstanding on the part of the executive committee in disposing of the appeal without complying with the principles of natural justice, ie. in letter and spirit of the order Ext.P8 and expressed remorse in correcting the same as ample opportunity would be given to the petitioner to represent before the executive committee by ordering restitution of appeal Ext.P7.
5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and appraised the paper books.
WP(C).No.28381 OF 2014(W)
6. The facts leading to memo of charges, imposition of major penalty and thereafter censure, recovery of money and repayment of the money after filing of the contempt matter and the order of this Court directing the appellate authority to afford opportunity of hearing while deciding the appeal filed under Rule 23 of Rule 1960 Rules are not in dispute. Ext.P13 minutes as regards the petitioner reads thus:
"Item No.EC-91/922: IHRD - Sm.Sherly Mole.P.B. Associate Professor in Chemistry, Model Engineering College Ernakulam - -Hearing note submitted before Executive Committee - Reg (No.EA3/11031/2013/HRD) The Executive committee resolved to initiate major disciplinary action to terminate Smt.Sherlymole P.B. Associate Professor in Chemistry, Model Engineering College, Ernakulam from IHRD service"
7. On a perusal of Ext.P13, it is discernible that there has not been any compliance of the direction of this Court. The action of the executive committee is wholly atrocious, malicious much less opaque. They are legitimately expected to comply with the principles of natural justice, particularly when there were directions of this Court. Though there is a clear contempt on their part, I refrain from taking action in view of the fact that the learned Counsel representing the respondents expressed remorse.
For the reasons aforementioned, Ext.P13 to the extent it relates WP(C).No.28381 OF 2014(W) to the petitioner and Ext.P14 are set aside. Ext.P7 is restored to original position. The executive committee is directed to decide the appeal strictly in compliance with the directions contained in Ext.P3. It is reiterated that in case there is any disobedience to the aforementioned order of this Court, this Court will be constrained to take action under Article 215 of the constitution of India as and when the alleged willful disobedience is brought to its notice. The writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/
AMIT RAWAL
Jm/ JUDGE
WP(C).No.28381 OF 2014(W)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES
AND STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS DATED
8.10.2013 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY
RESPONDENT NO.3
EXHIBIT P2 EXT.P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
BEARING G.O.(MS)NO.87/2012/H.EDN DATED 12.3.2012 EXHIBIT P3 EXT.P-3: TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMISSION DATED 9.7.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.4 EXHIBIT P4 EXT.P-4: TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMISSION DATED 30.8.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.4 EXHIBIT P5 EXT.P-5: TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENCE DATED 21.10.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.3 EXHIBIT P6 EXT.P-6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.1.2014 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 EXHIBIT P7 EXT.P-7: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 22.1.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.2 EXHIBIT P8 EXT.P-8: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 4.2.2014 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.3251 OF 2014 EXHIBIT P9 EXT.P-9: TRUE COPY OF THE PERSONAL HEARING NOTICE DATED 4.4.2014 SERVED ON THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P10 EXT.P-10: TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.2 EXHIBIT P11 EXT.P-11: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE DATED 6.5.2014 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 EXHIBIT P12 EXT.P-12: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.6.2014 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 WP(C).No.28381 OF 2014(W) EXHIBIT P13 EXT.P-13: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 91ST MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF IHRD DATED 26.8.2014 HELD AT MASCOT HOTEL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXHIBIT P14 EXT.P-14: TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE MEMO DATED 30.9.2014 THUS ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3