STATE OF KERALA Vs. K.JYOTHINDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Original Petitions have been filed by the State of Kerala and the Director of Medical Education challenging orders passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in three separate applications filed by Dr.K.Jyothindra Kumar, the 1 st respondent herein. No challenge is made against the order in OA Nos.1011/2018 and 1974/2018, which forms part of the common order.

(2.) The short facts of the case are as under and the parties are referred to as shown in the Original Application unless otherwise stated. The applicant Dr.K.Jyothindra Kumar while working as Joint Director of Medical Education (General) [for short JDME (G)], was transferred and appointed as the Principal Dental College, Thrissur as per order dated 11/11/2016. By the very same order, Dr.Jolly Mary Varughese was appointed as JDME(G). The applicant raised a contention that the post of Principal, Dental College is a lower post and therefore, it amounts to reversion which is not permissible as per Rules. Therefore, he challenged the order dated 11/11/2016 by filing OA No.2616/2016. The contention urged by the applicant was that there was substantial difference in the emoluments, powers, jurisdiction and that apart, the senior most among the Principals are appointed as JDME (G). The Government took up a contention that the post of Principal and JDME(G) carries the very same scale of pay and both the posts are interchangeable. The Tribunal while evaluating the respective contentions observed that in view of the vast difference in the matter of jurisdiction, emoluments and the powers which are delegated to each of them, it has to be held that the post of JDME(G) is superior than the Principal and therefore, it is not interchangeable and amounts to reversion to a lower post. Accordingly, the order dated 11/11/2016 was set aside.

(3.) Though the applicant was relieved from the post of JDME(G), he did not join the post as Principal. He submitted applications for leave on medical grounds. In the meantime, it appears that a report (Annexure A6) was submitted by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (VACB) alleging that the applicant was undertaking private practice in violation of the Rules. Pursuant to the said report, the applicant was placed under suspension as per order dated 26/4/2017 (Annexure A1). Thereafter he was issued with Annexure A3 memo of charges dated 26/4/2017 alleging that he was undertaking private practice at his residence. Earlier he was served with Government letter dated 6/4/2017 (Annexure A4), to explain why he was maintaining a separate attendance register for Dental service, and further alleging that the Government was misguided to issue an order dated 1/12/2015. Yet another memo of charges dated 11/4/2017 (Annexure A5) was also issued to the applicant alleging misuse of official vehicle. Applicant therefore challenged Annexures A1, A3, A4, A5 and A6 by filing OA No.1273/2017. The Tribunal found that the only reason for suspending the applicant from service was the report of the Director, VACB. It was held that, as no independent enquiry was conducted by the Government in terms of Rule 10 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960, the order of suspension does not satisfy the requirements under the aforesaid Rules. The order of suspension was hence found to be invalid. The Tribunal after considering the respective contentions quashed Annexures A3 and A5 on the ground that those were issued only as per directions by VACB. Annexure A4 notice had been cancelled by the Government as per its order dated 11/11/2017.