Lijo Anto.M.A vs Manager on 9 March, 2026

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Lijo Anto.M.A vs Manager on 9 March, 2026

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 4th 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 2026:KER:19635 4 CRP(UTY)No.1 of 2022 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 2026:KER:19635 5 CRP(UTY)No.1 of 2022 of defence before MW6. Thereupon, the 2nd 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 2nd respondent, finding the appellant guilty of the charges. Thereafter, the 2nd 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 2026:KER:19635 6 CRP(UTY)No.1 of 2022 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.M37 to M40, additional documents were marked. Again, the report was submitted to the 2nd respondent by the enquiry Officer and thereupon the 2nd respondent imposed a penalty of removal of the appellant from service as per Annexure A29 order dated 14.10.2019.

2.3. Challenging Annexure A29 order, the appellant preferred University Appeal No.5 of 2019, raising various contentions. After perusal of the entire records regarding the disciplinary proceedings and after hearing the learned counsel on either side, the Tribunal confirmed the order under challenge and dismissed the appeal by the judgment dated 16.12.2020. Challenging the said judgment, the appellant approached this Court by filing C.R.P.(UTY) No.1 of 2021. By the order dated 08.12.2021, this Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal and remitted the matter with a direction to alter the punishment 2026:KER:19635 7 CRP(UTY)No.1 of 2022 short of removal from service. The Tribunal was further directed to consider directing the Management to give a posting to MW2 and the appellant in different colleges under the same Management. In pursuance of the said direction, the Tribunal heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2. Thereafter, by the impugned judgment dated 09.02.2022, the Tribunal altered the penalty imposed on the appellant to that of reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list prepared by the Educational Agency. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to take steps for getting sanction from the Universities concerned for giving postings to the appellant as well as MW2 in different Colleges under the management of the 2nd respondent. The appellant was directed to be reinstated in service forthwith. Being aggrieved, the appellant approached this Court by filing the present C.R.P.(UTY) under Section 60(9) of the Calicut University Act, 1975.

3. On 15.03.2022, when this revision petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the same on file and issued notice to respondents 1 and 2 through special messenger. The learned 2026:KER:19635 8 CRP(UTY)No.1 of 2022 counsel for the 3rd respondent took notice for the said respondent.

4. On 02.04.2025, when this revision petition came up for consideration, the Division bench of this Court noticed that against the order of remand in C.R.P.(UTY) No.1 of 2021, the 1 st respondent Manager approached the Apex Court by filing a Special Leave Petition.

5. On 14.08.2025, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that SLP(C) Nos.8397-98 of 2022 arising out of the final judgment and order dated 19.01.2022 in R.P.No.68 of 2022 and order dated 08.12.2021 in C.R.P.(UTY) No.1 of 2021 ended in dismissal by the order dated 05.08.2025. Therefore, the Registry was directed to call for records from the Tribunal.

6. In this revision petition, MW2 filed I.A.No.3 of 2025 seeking her impleadment as the additional 4th respondent. By the order dated 18.02.2026, we allowed the said interlocutory application and impleaded MW2 as additional 4th respondent, with a specific direction to the Registry to mask the name of the additional 4th respondent in the cause title.

2026:KER:19635 9 CRP(UTY)No.1 of 2022

7. In this revision petition, respondents 1 and 2 filed a counter affidavit dated 21.10.2025, producing therewith Annexure R1(a) document.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner- appellant, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent, Calicut University and the learned counsel for MW2, the additional 4th respondent.

9. Though several grounds are stated in the revision petition against the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, the grievance of the petitioner-appellant is that the direction of the Tribunal to post the appellant in a college under the Management of the 2 nd respondent in a different university is against Section 64(iv) of the Calicut University Act, 1975, since it is not possible without a written request of the appellant. According to the appellant, the direction in the order dated 08.12.2021 in C.R.P.(UTY) No.1 of 2021 is only directory and not mandatory in nature. It is also the contention of the appellant that in paragraph 20 of the impugned judgment, the Tribunal observed that the appellant has committed the offence, which is against the finding in the order dated 2026:KER:19635 10 CRP(UTY)No.1 of 2022 08.12.2021 in C.R.P.(UTY) No.1 of 2021, and hence that portion of the observation in the impugned judgment is liable to be expunged.

10. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the University submitted that there are altogether seven punishments provided under Statute 69 of the Calicut University First Statutes, 1979. The appellant was granted the punishment of reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list by the Tribunal only for the reason that he can be transferred to another College under the same Management. If that is not possible, the Tribunal would have considered some other punishments like compulsory retirement provided in the Statute. Therefore, without challenging the transfer directed in C.R.P.(UTY) No.1 of 2021, the appellant cannot take a different stand by challenging that portion of the impugned judgment alone in this revision petition.

11. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent supported the impugned judgment. The learned counsel for MW2, the additional 4th respondent, submitted that the appellant has not challenged the direction of this Court in C.R.P.(UTY) No.1 of 2021 and 2026:KER:19635 11 CRP(UTY)No.1 of 2022 therefore cannot take a different stand at present. According to the learned Counsel, Section 64A of the Calicut University Act, 1975, is not an absolute bar in transferring the appellant from the College under the same Management in another University. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that while remanding the matter for imposing of lesser punishment, this Court did not hold that the appellant had not committed the offence, and on the other hand, it is for the reason that this Court found the appellant guilty of the charges, a punishment was directed to be imposed on him.

12. We have carefully gone through the records submitted by the Tribunal and the materials placed on record. The charges levelled against the appellant on the basis of the preliminary enquiry conducted by MW1 on the complaint of MW2, are serious in nature. The said charges are extracted in the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. In the final enquiry conducted by an enquiry authority appointed by the 2nd respondent, those charges framed against the appellant are found as proved. Though in the order dated 08.12.2021 in C.R.P.(UTY) No.1 of 2021, this Court 2026:KER:19635 12 CRP(UTY)No.1 of 2022 allowed the revision in part and remitted the matter to the Tribunal to alter the punishment short of removal from service, in that order, this Court did not find the charges levelled/framed against the appellant as false. If that was the finding of the Division Bench of this Court, naturally, the appellant would have been directed to be exonerated. Considering the evidence adduced before the enquiry authority and the materials placed on record, this Court directed the Tribunal to alter the punishment short of removal from service alone. The said order was not challenged by the appellant. In such circumstances, the observation of the Tribunal about the nature and gravity of the offence committed by the appellant, in paragraph 20 of the impugned judgment cannot be said as against the findings in the order dated 08.12.2021 passed by this Court in C.R.P.(UTY) No.1 of 2021. Hence, we hold that the appellant has not made out sufficient ground to expunge the said observation in the impugned judgment.

13. Now coming to the question of inter-university transfer of the appellant, Section 64A of the Calicut University Act, 1975 deals with inter University of transfer of Teachers by an 2026:KER:19635 13 CRP(UTY)No.1 of 2022 Educational Agency. The said Section reads thus:

"Section 64A - Inter University transfer of teacher by an educational agency.-

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law for the time being in force, where an educational agency has colleges under the jurisdiction of the Calicut University and also under the jurisdiction of another University in the State, a teacher appointed by such educational agency to a college within the jurisdiction of the another University, may be transferred to any college under the jurisdiction of the Calicut University, subject to the following conditions, namely:--

(i) transfer shall be made only on the written request of the teacher who has completed three years of service;

(ii) transfer shall be made only once during the entire period of service of a teacher;

(iii) transfer shall be made on the basis of the seniority of teachers;

(iv) teacher transferred under the provisions of this section shall become junior most in the colleges under the educational agency in the University irrespective of his service in the University from which he was transferred;

(v) transfer is to be made as and when vacancy arises in any of the colleges under the educational agency in the University, provided no home college option by any teacher against the said vacancy is pending; and

(vi) teacher who is transferred under the provisions of this 2026:KER:19635 14 CRP(UTY)No.1 of 2022 section shall be eligible for home college option and shall be treated as teacher of the University with all benefits that are enjoyed by the existing teachers, provided the services rendered by such teacher outside the University shall not be considered as outside service while exercising home college option.

Explanation:-- For the purpose of this section, "home college option" means the option made by a teacher regarding his home college in the University under the provisions of the Statutes made under this Act".

[Underline supplied]

14. A reading of Section 64A(i) of the Calicut University Act makes it clear that an inter-university transfer of a teacher by an educational agency shall be made only on the written request of the teacher who has completed three years of service. In the instant case, such a request is not made by the appellant. Section 64 of the Calicut University Act, 1975, referred to by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment, is not applicable to the present case since it deals with a circumstance where the educational agency has Colleges under the jurisdiction of the Calicut University and also under the jurisdiction of the Kerala University. But in the present case, admittedly, another College available to the educational agency herein is under the jurisdiction of Mahatma 2026:KER:19635 15 CRP(UTY)No.1 of 2022 Gandhi University.

15. In Corporate Manager, Travancore Devaswom Board v. Dr.Sangeetha S. [2025 KHC Online 1030], this Court considered the point whether an Educational Agency, which has colleges under the jurisdiction of different Universities, can transfer a Teacher from one college under a University to another college under a different University without the written request of the Teacher, in respect of a transfer of a teacher from a college under Mahatma Gandhi University to another college under the same management under Kerala University, with reference to the various provisions under the Universities Act and regulations pertaining to those universities, which are in parimateria to the provisions pertaining to the university in question in the present case and held thus:

"9. A reading of S.64 and S.64A of the Kerala University Act as well as S.68 and S.68A of the M.G. University Act would make it clear that transfer of a teacher from one college affiliated to a university to a college affiliated to another university under the same management can be done only if there is a written request from the part of the teacher and she or he has completed three years of service in the college. Similarly, Statute 35(2) and 37 of Chap.45 of the 2026:KER:19635 16 CRP(UTY)No.1 of 2022 M.G. University Statutes and Statute 34 of Chapter - 2 of Kerala University First Statutes, 1979 would also make it clear that such a transfer is permissible only with the written request of the teacher concerned". [Underline supplied]

16. In the order dated 08.12.2021 in C.R.P.(UTY)No.1 of 2021, this Court directed the Tribunal to consider directing the Management to give a posting to the complainant and the appellant in different colleges under the same Management. Such a direction is to be complied, only if it is possible to do so, as per the existing law. Since it is not possible in the instant case to transfer the appellant to another College under the same management, since there is no such college in the same University under the same management, that portion of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. As far as the arguments raised at the Bar regarding imposition of another penalty provided under Statute 69 of the Calicut University First Statutes, 1979, the Tribunal considered the said aspect also in the impugned judgment and held that the directions in the order dated 08.12.2021 in C.R.P.(UTY)No.1 of 2021 clearly suggest that it is not appropriate and advisable to impose the penalty of compulsory 2026:KER:19635 17 CRP(UTY)No.1 of 2022 retirement.

17. While going through the order of this Court in C.R.P.(UTY)No.1 of 2021, we could not discern another conclusion than that arrived at by the Tribunal, with respect to the imposition of punishment on the appellant.

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, as discussed above, we find that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside to the extent it directs respondents 1 and 2 to take steps for getting sanction from the Universities concerned for giving posting to the appellant in a different College under the management of the 2nd respondent in a different University.

The civil revision petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

sks                                MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
                                                             2026:KER:19635
                                       18
CRP(UTY)No.1 of 2022



                       APPENDIX OF CRP(UTY) NO. 1 OF 2022

RESPONDENT ANNEXURES

Annexure R-1(a)             True copy of the order No. GA II/F3/3601/11

dated 27-03-2012 issued by the University of Calicut

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court