BINDU GEORGE Vs. MANAGER, AQUINAS COLLEGE EDACOCHIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext.P6 order placing the petitioner under suspension is under challenge in this Writ Petition.

(2.) The petitioner is the Head of the Department of Economics in the 1 st respondent college. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P1 notice dated 06.03.2000, informing the petitioner that he received a complaint from one Mr.Vijo M.Joy through the Principal in charge, to the effect that she abused him and cursed him and his parents, in front of the Principal-in-charge, in her office on 28.02.2020 and that she was spreading stories in the college to destroy his moral character. It was stated that the matter was serious and unbecoming and unacceptable of college teachers. Petitioner was requested to submit her explanation within one week through the Principal. It is stated that the petitioner thereupon submitted Ext.P2 letter dated 12.03.2020 requesting the 1 st respondent to furnish her a copy of the complaint in order to submit a reply to the notice, stating that she was unaware of the contents of the complaint preferred by Mr.Vijo M.Joy. She had also sought for a further period of 2 weeks to submit her explanation. She also stated that on 05.3.2020 she had brought to the notice of the Manager that Mr.Vijo M.Joy abused her using unparliamentary words never expected of an educated civilized man, especially from a teacher working in a college and the manager had not taken any action in that matter or conducted any enquiry. It was stated that he has preferred the complaint against her as a retaliatory measure in order to save himself from his conduct. Denying the allegations levelled against her, she stated that she has always regulated her conduct as a teacher and as a model citizen. It is stated that Ext.P3 complaint was submitted before the Manager on 05.03.2020. Manager thereafter issued Ext.P4 letter dated 25.05.2020 stating that when Ext.P1 notice seeking explanation was handed over to her by the Principal in charge, instead of acknowledging its receipt on the copy, the petitioner scribbled allegations against the complainant on that copy and claimed that she had sent email to the Manager complaining the action of Sri. Vijo M.Joy on 05.03.2020; the manager stated that in case she had any complaint she should have submitted the same in a proper way with date and signature and not through any unofficial e-mail. It was further stated that in her reply dt.12.03.2020 instead of limiting her explanation to her defence she found out procedural errors in the action of the manager in asking for explanation. Stating that the college authorities had acted strictly in compliance with the statutory provisions, the manager stated that he has called for a report from the Principal in charge on the entire incident and in her detailed report she has testified that there had been rude and abusive use of words on the part of the petitioner even in her presence. It was stated that behaviour of the petitioner and her use of words to the college authorities and fellow teachers had been very rude, quarrel producing, angry and without any respect or politeness. It was further stated that a copy of the complaint need be given only if major penalties affecting the service are intended against the teacher concerned. Since it was in the initial stage of the disciplinary proceedings, she was requested to co-operate with the same as stipulated in the law, governing teachers in a private affiliated college run by a minority institution. She was informed that the complaint against the abusive use of words and spreading of vulgar stories against persons whom she disliked is not a solitary incident; there had been several complaints against her on previous occasions and also recently from several teachers of different departments and from students, both oral and written, about her undignified behaviour. It was stated that she had been doing this in the presence of other people even in meetings in the college and there are several witnesses regarding her frequent abusive and angry use of words against college authorities, fellow teachers and non teaching staff. Manager stated that the correspondence on that matter was closed by putting on record their extreme disapproval about her impolite ways and deciding to take serious disciplinary action against her in case she does not behave to the college authorities with respect and to her fellow teachers, non teaching staff and students politely, in future. The petitioner thereupon submitted Ext.P5 letter through proper channel stating that the stigmatic letter be recalled and the matter be closed. In Ext.P5 letter the petitioner stated that she was not given the copy of the complaint preferred by Mr.Vijo M.Joy and she was not given any personal hearing and that the management had not taken any action against Mr.Vijo M.Joy on her complaint and that the matter was closed as per Ext.P4 without hearing her part as if the allegations raised against her were substantiated. She stated that the entire statement in the letter is an indication that she had accepted the facts stated as true and correct which are not sustainable. She stated that there was no incident of abusing any teacher including Mr.Vijo M.Joy. She also raised an allegation that the disciplinary authority in the case of a teacher in an affiliated college concerned is the educational agency, which is the appointing authority and the manager has not adhered to the statutory provisions while issuing the stigmatic letter for an incident which is not established or proved. She requested to recall the letter to save her reputation and honour as a teacher and Head of Department of Economics of the college, stating that she has got 27 years of teaching experience in the college with high reputation and that the complaint preferred by Mr.Vijo M.Joy is frivolous.

(3.) The order of suspension is issued thereafter as per Ext.P6 order dated 02.07.2020. It was stated that the 1 st respondent had issued Ext.P4 letter upon getting several complaints against the petitioner including an adverse report of the Principal in charge; the 1st respondent found that the views expressed by her in Ext.P5 letter was contrary to facts. It was stated that a situation had therefore arisen compelling the manager to ensure the smooth and disciplined functioning of the college by the orderly and proper behaviour of the teaching staff in order to avoid academic failures and indiscipline as the college is striving for excellence; several complaints exist aginst the petitioner including an adverse report of the Principal in charge. It was stated that considering the said situation it was decided to take a denovo proceedings by recalling Ext.P4 letter and to issue orders afresh since the petitioner has in Ext.P5 letter additionally submitted untrue statements and falsehood in a clandestine manner. The allegations raised were the following: