P.H.SUBAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P.(C) No.20910/2015 is filed by the petitioner seeking promotion to the post of Principal with effect from 1.5.2015. W.P.(C) No.27035/2015 is filed challenging an order of suspension issued to the petitioner while W.P.(C) No.1431/2016 challenges the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner. W.P.(C) No.12746/2016 is filed challenging the promotion of the 6th respondent to the post of Principal ignoring the claim of the petitioner on the ground that disciplinary proceedings are pending against him.

(2.) The petitioner was working as Head of the Electronics Engineering Section in the Seethi Sahib Memorial Polytechnic College, Tirur. He entered service as Workshop Instructor in the year 1989. He was promoted as Assistant Lecturer on 12.2.1992 and Lecturer in Electronics Engineering on 13.9.2001. In the year 2004, the petitioner was posted as Head of the Section in Electronics Engineering in the college. It is stated that the petitioner was fully qualified and eligible for promotion to the post of Principal which arose in the college on 1.5.2015 consequent on the retirement of Sri.K. Ameer Ali. It is stated that the petitioner had submitted a representation seeking the promotion, but, without considering the same, the 6th respondent was given full additional charge of the post of Principal. It was contended that the petitioner is the senior most eligible candidate going by merit and seniority as provided in Rule 16 of Ext.P2 Special Rules and therefore, it was only to deny the legitimate claim of the petitioner that the 6th respondent was given charge.

(3.) Notice before admission was ordered in the writ petition on 10.7.2015. While so, an order was passed on 1.9.2015, placing the petitioner under suspension. The said order has been challenged in W.P.(C) No.27035/2015. The reasons for the suspension in the order, which is produced as Ext.P1 in W.P.(C) No.27035/2015 is that the petitioner had acquired B.Tech degree from the College of Engineering, Thiruvananthapuram during the period 1997-2001, without duly obtaining leave from the College. It is stated that on verification of records, it is revealed that while undergoing the B.Tech course at Thiruvananthapuram, the petitioner had signed the attendance register of the College and had received salary and other benefits. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that undergoing of the B.Tech course in 1997 to 2001 was with full authorisation of the management of the College and that the fact was duly recorded in his service book as well. It is submitted that the petitioner had availed earned leave, half pay leave, leave without allowance, etc. for the period in question and had undergone and completed the course without any objection from any authorities either in the Management or the Department. It is stated that the order of suspension is issued purely in order to deny the rightful promotion to the petitioner, for which, he had raised a claim by the first writ petition. It is submitted that the raking up of a matter which had occurred 18 years prior to Ext.P1 order of suspension is completely without jurisdiction and even if the facts are admitted, there is absolutely no justification for initiating a disciplinary proceedings after nearly two decades of the alleged misconduct. It is submitted that it is abundantly clear that it was only on account of the mala fide intention to deny the promotion to the post of Principal that the disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner.