RAJAKRISHNAN Vs. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a Reader in the University Institute of English in Kerala University. In the year 1987 he applied for the Major Research Programme of the University Grants Commission for his project in Comparative Literature titled as "Theme of Self discovery in Modern Indian Novel and its relation to East West Cultural Encounter". The U.G.C, approved the project and in 1988 petitioner was made the Director of the project with a total grant of Rs. 1 lakh. This was done with the concurrence and approval of the Kerala University and the grant was to be disbursed through the University. It was an additional work for the petitioner while continuing as an employee of the University. The Project entails travel all over India because the specific subject of research is "Theme of Self Discovery in Modern Indian Novel and its relation to East West Cultural Encounter". For this purpose, according to the petitioner, there has to be meeting and interviews with eminent novelists all over India. While undertaking travel he has to be outside Thiruvananthapuram for many a number of days. He can be outside Thrivananthapuram only with the permission of respondents Nos. land 2. As per the relevant rules he was made to understand that he would not be granted mere leave on duty for the research project and that he would have to apply for a travel grant which if granted would entitle him to be on duty while on travel and get actual travel expenses. If the travel grant is not sanctioned he cannot go or otherwise if he goes he will have to undertake the same on loss of pay and by exhausting eligible leave. He sent written petition dated 4-3-1990 for travel grant for doing work at the American Study Research Centre, Hyderabad, which was necessary for the research work. This was sent through the Director, Planning and Development. According to him, if he was not sanctioned the travel grant the project itself will be scuttled effectively earning a bad name for the petitioner and the University. In reply to the petitioner's request he received a letter dated 7-6-90 from the Director of Planning and Development to the effect that his request has been rejected. That letter upset him. He felt desperate and that reputation of the University and its integrity as well as that of the petitioner and their credibility and the work so far done was in jeopardy due to personal animosity and it was therefore necessary to salvage the situation if possible. Petitioner, it is alleged, believes firmly that the role of a University and that of its various institutes are totally different from that of a private parallel college. The aim of the University should not be to teach to get a pajss in the examination. In this agitated mood he wrote a letter to the Director expressing his frustration at the rejection of his request for travel grant. The contents of that letter, according to the petitioner, was meant only for the personal attention of the Director. But by Ext. P2 dated 29-6-1990 petitioner has been placed under suspension pending enquiry into two charges. This order of suspension is under challenge.

(2.) A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the University. The averments made therein are to the following effect. Petitioner is an employee of the University holding a teaching post as Reader in the University Institute of English. The Syndicate is the appointing authority. All teachers of the University are subject to the disciplinary control of the Syndicate. As per the provisions of the Statute the Syndicate can place an employee of the University under suspension when disciplinary proceedings against him is contemplated or is pending. Ext. P2 was passed on the basis of the decision of the Syndicate in accordance with the Statute. It is further stated that the petitioner being an employee of the University was bound to maintain discipline in his official conduct. Since he has acted in violation of the conduct rules, disciplinary actions for maintaining discipline in the service of the University are initiated. Petitioner by letter dated 4-3-1990 requested for travel grant to visit American Research Centre at Hyderabad for a period of 5 weeks during the months of July and August, 1990, and also requested to consider the period of absence as on duty. This proposal was not made as directed by the University. It was one made by him on his own accord. The sanctioning authority of such proposal is the Syndicate based on the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Seminars and Conferences. This Committee is headed by Rev. Fr. K.A. Abraham. The Committee on 7-3-1990 considered the request of the petitioner and they rejected the same. That recommendation was placed before the Syndicate. The Syndicate unanimously accepted the decision of the Standing Committee. Subsequently, on 17-6-1990 petitioner sent an objectionable letter directly to the Director of Planning and Development condemning the Syndicate in accepting the Standing Committee's recommendations. This letter was considered by the Standing Committee on Seminars and Conferences on 21-6-1990. They referred the same to the Syndicate. In the Meeting of the Syndicate held on 29-6-1990 Rev.Fr. KA. Abraham pointed out that the petitioner had written a highly objectionable letter. The President of the meeting, the Dean of the Faculty of Law, asked for a decision on the matter. After considering the matter the Syndicate decided to place the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry. The allegation that the decision was based on political consideration and was taken at the instance of Shri.G. Sudhakaran has been emphatically denied. On these grounds it is averred that the order, Ext. P2, is not liable to be interfered with by this court.

(3.) Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit reiterating the contentions raised in the Original Petition.