THOMAS K PHILIP, Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext.P14 order by which the petitioner is placed under suspension is under challenge in this Writ Petition.

(2.) The petitioner is the Head Accountant in the St.Mary's College, Manarcaud. It is stated that consequent to the death of former Head Accountant Sajan Zachariah while in service on 5.10.2019, petitioner was promoted as Head Accountant and he took charge on 09.10.2019. According to the petitioner, the circumstances which resulted in his suspension are the following: Immediately after the petitioner took charge as Head Accountant, he noticed several discrepancies in the account books of the college and therefore on 17.10.2019, as per Ext.P1 letter he requested the Principal - the 5 th respondent, to take steps to get the accounts audited. It was followed by Ext.P2 letter on 4.11.2019 to the Manager-the 4th respondent. Thereupon, the 5th respondent as per Ext.P3 letter dt.5.11.2019 directed him to complete the work on cash book, ledgers, voucher files, registers etc. and get all those ready before 11.11.2019 for furnishing the same for audit. It was stated that as per the duty assignment in the college issued on 6.3.2018, the petitioner was in charge of cash book, ledger voucher files, concerned registers etc. and that he used to furnish cash book alone for audit and that despite repeated directions he has not furnished the ledgers and vouchers. On the very same day the petitioner as per Ext.P4 letter informed the 5 th respondent that he was given only charge of maintaining TR-7A cash book and the same was duly completed and submitted; other books like P.D Special fee cash book, P.D Caution deposit cash book, daily fee collection register were maintained by late Sajan Zachariah and were seen countersigned by the 5 th respondent; after he took charge, when he examined these accounts in order to make entries in continuation, serious discrepancies were noticed and therefore he requested for arranging an audit; the allegations were raised referring to his duty assignment from 06.03.2018 only because he insisted for audit, in order to make the entries. Thereafter, the 5 th respondent as per Ext.P5 letter dt.7.12.19 stating that the audit wing has postponed the audit to 12.12.2019 since he did not complete the arrangements for the audit despite instructions issued on 25.11.2019, the petitioner was directed to complete the arrangements for the same before 10.12.19. In Ext.P6 reply submitted on 9.12.2019 he pointed out the request he had made in Ext.P1 letter to get the accounts audited; but the 5th respondent did not take any steps for the same; the account books have not been verified periodically by the higher authorities; a sum of Rs.10,86,700/- was seen withdrawn from the e-grants account; with the knowledge of the 5th respondent that amount was remitted to that account from the personal account of the son of deceased Sajan Zacharia, which is a serious irregularity; the 5th respondent wanted the petitioner to include the said transaction in the cash book, which the petitioner did not accede to, insisting for an audit. On 14.01.2020 the petitioner as per Ext.P7 letter informed the 5 th respondent that in view of the large number of discrepancies found in the account books and because accounting discrepancies cannot be corrected subsequently, the books cannot be completed. On 04.03.2020, the 4th respondent issued a show cause notice asking his explanation for his absence for 2 days when petitioner's son was hospitalised; on submitting Ext.P9 reply, the Manager issued Ext.P10 letter informing that he is not initiating any action in view of the explanation. The 5th respondent, who wanted to cover up his irregularities which he comitted along with late Sajan Zacharia, was adopting measures of harassment in all possible ways, without the knowledge of the Manager/the 4th respondent. The 5th respondent managed to convene a staff council meeting without any intimation to all the members including the petitioner or the librarian; certain decisions were taken to enquire into the financial irregularities in the college; the 5 th respondent preferred a complaint to the 4th respondent referring to those decisions; though the petitioner and the librarian are also members of the staff council, the alleged meeting in which the alleged decisions were taken, was conducted without notice to either the petitioner or the librarian. Ext.P12 show cause notice was issued thereafter on 02.07.2020 alleging irregularities on the part of the petitioner in maintaining the accounts for the period from 14.3.18 to 7.6.19; inaction in making arrangements for the audit, etc. The petitioner submitted Ext.P13 explanation denying those allegations pointing out the factual circumstances. Ext.P14 order of suspension was issued thereafter on 21.7.2020, stating that his reply to the show cause notice is not satisfactory and it was decided to proceed with disciplinary action against him. It is stated that though there is a seal of the Manager of the College, the name of the signatory is not shown there and it is not in the letterhead of the Society or that of the Manager. The petitioner submits that the 4 th respondent does not have any authority to place him under suspension, because Ext.P15 byelaws of the Society which runs the college, under Clause 8(a) provides that a Parish Priest elected by the general body shall be the Chairman of the Society, who shall be the Manager. Pointing out various correspondence from the Directorate of Collegiate Education, the Manager, etc. in Exts.P16 to P18, the petitioner states that there is not even a properly constituted governing board for a long time. The writ petition was filed at this stage pointing out that the order of suspension is non-est.

(3.) Respondents 4 and 5 have filed separate counter affidavits denying the allegations raised by the petitioner. In the counter affidavit, the 5 th respondent has stated that the suspension was ordered by the manager as authorised by the educational agency after he was prima facie convinced of the complaints about the petitioner. It is stated that St.Mary's College, Manarcaud is administered by a unitary management viz. St.Mary's Jacobite Syrian Charitable and Educational Society, Manarcad, which is a registered society which is governed by Ext.R5(a)/Ext P15 bye-law. It is stated that the additional 6 th respondent was appointed in a meeting held on 18.07.2020, in view of the emergent circumstances under clause 8(g) of the byelaw until a general body is convened for electing a priest. It is stated that as per Section 56 of the M.G University Act, the Management can appoint the Manager for the College. The appointment of the new Manager by the Educational Agency was duly intimated to the 2 nd and 3rd respondents on 21.07.2020. Suspension was ordered as per the decision of the management; the educational agency was prima face satisfied that there is grave misconduct on the part of the petitioner; Ext.R4(c) memo of charges are issued on 29.07.2020.