MANAGER SREE NARAYANA COLLEGES Vs. N RAVEENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The principal and the Manager of S.N.College are at loggerheads for the last few years challenging the legality or otherwise of an order of termination. The issue came up for consideration before a Bench consisting of one of us, K.S.Radhakrishnan, J. in W.A. 1633 of 2001 and connected cases wherein the Bench had elaborately considered the law and facts, therefore we need not reiterate the entire facts, but only the essential facts for disposal of these cases.

(2.) Dr.N.Raveendran was appointed as Principal by order of the management dated 5.10.1998. He was served with a show cause notice dated 17.1.2000 stating that his service as Principal during the period of probation was not satisfactory and was found not suitable for continuance as Principal and hence decided to terminate his probation and to revert him to the post of Selection Grade Lecturer in History. Management gave 15 days time to submit his objections, if any. Dr.Raveendran filed a detailed objection on 3.2.2000 on the various charges levelled against him. He submitted if those charges are allowed to stand the same would cast a stigma on him. Further he had also pointed out that under section 59(7) of the Kerala University Act he should be deemed to have been confirmed in the post of Principal on 5.10.1999. Show cause notice was challenged before the University Tribunal. Tribunal accepted the contention of the Principal and held that issuance of show cause notice was bad in law since he had already completed the period of probation. Further, Tribunal also took the view that after completion of probation the management cannot terminate the probation and revert the principal without initiating disciplinary action and conducting any enquiry. The order of the Tribunal was challenged before this Court. Management tried to sustain the show cause notice stating that the notice was issued during the period of probation and hence valid. The Principal took the view that since he had already completed the period of probation there is no question of terminating his probation and reverting him from the post of Principal. The bench after considering the entire facts as well as examining the scope of section 59 of the Kerala University Act held as follows:

(3.) Dr.Raveendran also filed appeal No.1 of 2002 before the Kerala University Appellate Tribunal for setting aside the show cause memo dated 25.1.2002 and also for a declaration that he had completed probation as Principal with effect from 5.11.1999 and also for a direction to the management to take steps to release his salary and for other consequential reliefs. Tribunal however, dismissed the appeal holding that the same was premature. Therefore the declaration sought for by him that he had completed probation was rejected. The order of the Tribunal was challenged by Dr.Raveendran before this Court in CRP. 1701 of 2002. This court set aside the order of the Tribunal and directed the management to pass appropriate orders untrammeled by the findings and observations of the Tribunal. That order was appealed against by Dr.Raveendran before the Supreme Court by filing petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 24148 of 2002. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Apex Court vide its order dated 8.1.2003.