M.S. Sabarinathan vs Kerala Agricultural University, Vice Chancellor and The Registrar

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—The Petitioner herein challenges the orders culminating in rejection of the appeal filed by him against the punishment imposed, as per Ext.P12.

The Petitioner was working as L.D.V. Driver (Senior Grade) attached to the College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Mannuthy. By Ext.P1 order, he was placed under suspension. Disciplinary proceedings followed thereafter and Ext.P2 is the copy of the memo of charges and Ext.P3 is the explanation submitted by the Petitioner. Ext.P5 is the explanation submitted in response to Ext.P4 notice issued by the Registrar. Thereafter, an enquiry officer was appointed as evident from Ext.P6. Ext.P7 is the copy of the enquiry report. Ext.P8 is the copy of the show cause notice issued thereafter and he submitted a reply as per Ext.P9. It is the case of the Petitioner that even without considering various aspects, the proceedings were finalised by awarding a penalty of reduction to the lower post of Class IV employee Grade II. Ext.P11 is the appeal filed by him to which Ext.P12 reply was given stating that the appeal submitted by him has been rejected by the Vice Chancellor.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the appeal has been disposed of without considering any of the points raised and under Clause 61 of the Statutes, the points enumerated had to be considered by the Vice Chancellor. Other grounds have also been raised in the writ petition with regard to the challenge against the findings of the enquiry officer and the gravity of the punishment.

A statement has been filed by the Respondents. It is pointed out in para 7 that the appeal was filed 104 days after the period of limitation and it could have been rejected for this reason itself. The Vice Chancellor, after examining the whole matter, arrived at the conclusion that the Petitioner''s reversion as a punishment is found reasonable and no interference is required and accordingly he rejected the appeal. It is also the contention of the Respondents that the appellate authority has considered all the points enumerated in Clause 61 of the Kerala Agricultural University Statutes. A close reading of Ext.P12 shows that the same is only a communication about the dismissal of the appeal and not an order itself. Apart from Ext.P12, no other communications have been issued as the proceedings of the appellate authority. Evidently, Ext.P12 is issued to inform the Petitioner that the appeal has been rejected. On this aspect, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the Vice Chancellor rejected the appeal with a Note in the file and the crucial Note is extracted below:

On going through the files and discussion, I understand that his reversion as a punishment is found reasonable. Hence I am not interfering the action by the Registrar and rejected the appeal.

One of the contentions raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the University is that the Petitioner has a remedy under Clause 64 of the Statutes.

I have considered the relevant contentions. First I will consider whether a revision is maintainable. Clause 64 provides for exercise of revisional power by the Executive Committee after calling for the record of the case of a subordinate authority and they can pass appropriate orders in the matter. As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the University, the Vice Chancellor cannot be said to be a subordinate authority of the Executive Committee.

Under Clause 61(1), in an appeal the appellate authority will have to consider the following items:

(a) Whether the facts on which the order was based have been established;

(b) whether the facts established afford sufficient grounds for taking actions;

(c) whether the procedure prescribed in these statutes have been complied with, and if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in violation of any laws of the University or in failure of justice;

(d) whether the findings are justified; and

(e) whether the penalty imposed is excessive; adequate or inadequate; and pass orders-

(i) setting aside, reducing, confirming or enhancing the penalty;

(ii) remitting the case to the authority which imposed the penalty or to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case Provided that,-

(i) the appellate authority shall not impose any enhanced penalty which neither such authority nor the authority which made the order appealed against is competent in the case to impose;

(ii) no order imposing an enhanced penalty shall be passed unless the Appellant is given an opportunity of making any representation which he may wish to make against such an enhanced penalty; and

(iii) if the enhanced penalty which the appellate authority proposes to impose is one of the penalties specified in items (v) to (ix) of Statute 23 and an inquiry under these Statutes has not already been held in the case, the appellate authority shall subject to the provisions of Statute 47, itself hold such inquiry or direct that such inquiry be held and thereafter on consideration of the proceedings of such inquiry and after giving the Appellant an opportunity of making any representation which he may wish to make against such penalty, pass such orders as it may deem fit.

Evidently, the said provision impose a duty to pass a reasoned order to be passed in an appeal. Satisfaction of items (a) to (e) of Clause 61 should reflect from the proceedings issued by the appellate authority. Here, the same is lacking, evidently.

It is well settled that a reasoned order is one of the components for compliance of the principles of natural justice. In a matter like this where the disciplinary proceedings are under challenge including the penalty imposed, it is a statutory right of appeal that is being exercised by the parties concerned. Therefore, the Appellant will be entitled to know the reasons which persuaded the appellate authority to take a decision in the appeal. Therefore, it cannot be said that a reasoned order is not required at all, which appears to be the stand of the Respondents in the statement.

The objection that the appeal was delayed, was not obviously taken and therefore the appeal ought to have been considered on merits.

For all these reasons, I quash Ext.P12. There will be a direction to reconsider the appeal after affording a personal hearing to the Petitioner and appropriate orders on merits will be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs.