S N TRUST Vs. UNNIKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While working as a Senior Grade Lecturer in the service of one of the colleges under the Sree Narayana Trust, the teacher involved in these matters was promoted to the post of Principal on 19.5.2007. In terms of the Kerala University Act, 1974, for short, the "Act", he had to undergo one year of probation in that post, within a total period of two years. On 20.5.2008, he was given a notice that the Management proposes to hold that he is not suitable for continuance in the category of Principal and has not successfully completed probation. Consequently, he was reverted to the category of Selection Grade Lecturer on 9.6.2008. The teacher challenged that decision in Appeal No. 5 of 2008 in terms of Section 59(8) of the Act before the University Appellate Tribunal, hereinafter, the "Tribunal". An interim order in that appeal brought the parties to this Court in W.P.(C) 18865 of 2008; the Management obtaining an interim order of stay. In modification of that order, this Court clarified on 3.12.2008 that the stay order will not be a ground for taking any disciplinary proceedings against the teacher. With that modification, the interim order granted in that case was extended. Ultimately, when that writ petition came up for hearing, the learned Single Judge noted that the whole controversy was on the basis of a couple of orders passed by the Tribunal pending the appeal and that the parties had agreed, by that time, that their pleadings before the Tribunal are complete and that the appeal is ripe for hearing. Accordingly, that writ petition was ordered without entering on merits, on 15.12.2008, directing that the Tribunal shall dispose the proceedings before it in a time bound manner. It was also directed that the interim order of stay granted in that writ petition will remain in force in the mean time. Thereafter, the Tribunal disposed Appeal No. 5 of 2008 on 31.1.2009. This means that the interim order of stay granted and modified by this Court on 3.12.2008 in W.P.(C) 18865 of 2008 ordering that grant of stay will not be a ground for taking disciplinary proceedings against the teacher, continued to work against the management till 31.1.2009, the date on which the Tribunal decided Appeal No. 5 of 2008. However, in the interregnum, the teacher was placed under suspension on 19.1.2009 and memo of charges was served on him along with that suspension order. An enquiry officer was appointed before 31.1.2009, the date of disposal of Appeal No. 5 of 2008. The teacher did not participate in that enquiry. The enquiry concluded by upholding the charges. As a consequence, the teacher was removed from service. He challenged that and certain incidental matters in University Appeals 4 of 2009 and 5 of 2009 under Section 63(6) of the Act before the Tribunal.

(2.) Before proceeding further, we may note that the teacher had challenged the order of suspension dated 19.1.2009 in another independent writ petition before this Court, W.P.(C) 5548 of 2009. The learned Single Judge stayed that order and directed reinstatement of the teacher as Principal. At the instance of the management, the Division Bench modified that order in a writ appeal and directed that the teacher be reinstated as Senior Grade Lecturer. In purported obedience of that order, the teacher was reinstated on the date immediately preceding his superannuation from service on 31.3.2009.

(3.) Thereafter, by independent orders, the Tribunal allowed the teacher's appeals.