PRAJYOTI NIKETAN COLLEGE Vs. DR SR ANCY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision filed under S. 60(9) of the Calicut University Act, 1975 by the Manager of an aided college affiliated to the Calicut University and the Secretary and the Governing Body of the Society which runs that College, is against an order passed by the Calicut University Appellate Tribunal, for short, 'Tribunal', in an appeal filed by the respondent under S. 60(7) of that Act read with Regulation 8 of the Calicut University Appellate Tribunal Regulations. Respondent was the Principal of the College. She was dismissed from service by order dated 15.05.2004 folio wing disciplinary proceedings. She challenged that before the Tribunal. The Tribunal overruled the objections of the management that it is a minority institution and was entitled to protection under Art. 30(1) of the Constitution of India. It further held that even if it were one entitled to such protection, that would not insulate it from the Tribunal interfering with the disciplinary action and the punishment imposed, since the actions complained of by the Principal are committed in violation of the laws, and the protection under Art. 30(1) of the Constitution of India is no licence to act in an illegal manner of the esteemed rights of the employees of the institution. The Tribunal held that the appeal was maintainable under S. 60(7) of the Calicut University Act. On facts, the Tribunal held that the enquiry proceedings and the enquiry report and the findings therein were wholly unsustainable as regards all the four articles of charges levelled against the Teacher. The Tribunal, on an appreciation of the entire materials on record, including the depositions and documentary evidence, held that the charges did not amount to misconduct, and that the allegations against the Principal have not been established by any material worth credence. Resultantly, the Tribunal ordered reinstatement of the appellant before it, with full backwages.

(2.) The learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioners argued that having regard to the contents of the objections raised by the management, in writing, before the Tribunal, it can never be held that the College is not a minority institution-eligible to protection under Art. 30(1) of the Constitution of India. He argued that the provisions in S. 60(7) of the Calicut University Act are in pari materia with the provisions of S. 60(7) of the Kerala University Act, 1974, and the said provision gives uncanalised and unguided power to the Tribunal, and therefore, following the judgments of the Apex Court in Lilly Kurian v. Sr. Lewina, 1979 2 SCC 124 and in Lilly Kurian v. . University Appellate Tribunal, 1997 1 KerLT 722; the latter affirming the judgment of this Court in Manager, St. Josephs Training College v. University Appellate Tribunal,1980 KerLT 67 overruling the earlier Full Bench decision of this Court in Benedict Mar Gregorios v. State of Kerala, 1976 KerLT 458; the Tribunal could not have entertained the appeal as against a minority institution. It was further argued that the quality of findings rendered by the Appellate Tribunal is conspicuously that which would be rendered by a Tribunal with no restrictions on the grounds of appeal or the nature of orders against which appeals could be filed. The interference made by the Tribunal is criticised as sweeping and having been made, as if it is a comprehensive adjudication by a court of first instance or an appellate authority with power to revisit a decision of an inferior authority on all fours, by re-appreciating the entire materials and substituting the conclusions of the inferior authority with its conclusions. In this view of the matter, it is argued that the findings rendered by the Tribunal also tend to show that it is the result of an unrestricted appellate power being available to the Tribunal and such power cannot be exercised to interfere with the minority educational institution's disciplinary power over its employees, including teachers.

(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Teacher argued that the entire file and materials, including the enquiry proceedings and the nature of allegations made in the memo of charges, clearly indicate that the situation is one of victimisation of a woman employee and the charges levelled have not been proved with any reliable material on record, much less to say any legal evidence. He, therefore, says that the decision of the disciplinary authority and the consequential order of dismissal are not based on any material and are perverse and the educational agency has acted in violation of the principles of natural justice and the action is simply one of victimisation of the respondent who was the Principal of the College.