UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT Vs. MOHAMED SAJID T.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal we are called upon to answer the question whether this court should invoke its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of an employee facing accusation of defalcation of money, recall the order of suspension and reinstate him during the pendency of the enquiry. The appellant University takes strong exception to the judgment dtd. 02/12/2021 in W.P.(C)No.10366/2021. The appellant is the fourth respondent in the writ petition. The petitioner and respondents 1 to 3 and 5 in the writ petition are the respondents herein. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the writ petition.

(2.) The writ petition was filed seeking quashing of Ext.P17 recommendation and report of the third respondent to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner; to declare the issuance of Ext.P18 suspension order to be legally unsustainable and to quash Ext.P18 order of suspension passed against the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P17. By the impugned judgment, the writ petition has been allowed by setting aside Ext.P18 suspension order and the 4th respondent University has been directed to reinstate the petitioner with a condition that he should not tamper with the evidence or try to influence the witnesses in the proceedings, and in case he is found to be indulging so, liberty has been granted to the University to move appropriate application for modification or recalling the order. The prayer for quashing Ext.P17 report has been disallowed. Aggrieved, the fourth respondent University has come up in appeal.

(3.) Heard Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant; Sri.Geoge Poonthottam, the learned Senior counsel for first respondent and Smt.V. Vinita, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 2 to 5.