SHEFFIQ HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner entered service as a Senior Grade Assistant on 14/2/2019 at Mahatma Gandhi University. On 26/10/2019, the Pro-Vice Chancellor issued proceedings granting special benefits to a deaf and dumb student, Gokul Krishana M.S. (B Sc Model I Mathematics) of Sree Sankara Vidyapeetom College, granting exemption from attending the examination for second language for the first Semester October 2019 and second semester October 2020 and allotted 25% grade marks / 10% grace grade points. Accordingly, Gokul did not attend the examination, but when the results were published, it was seen that Gokul was absent for the second language, Sanskrit for the above two-semester examination and was declared failed. On 25/8/2021, the Principal of Sree Sankara Vidyapeetom College submitted a complaint to the Controller of Examinations of the second respondent University in this regard. The complaint, Ext.P1, was forwarded from the Tapal examination sec. to the petitioner for further action on receipt, of which, the petitioner created a file as DDFS 115855/CBCSS 18- 1/2021. The petitioner forwarded the said file to the immediate Sec. Officer on 3/9/2021, and the Sec. Officer, in turn, forwarded the same to the Assistant Registrar on the very same day for further action. The Assistant Registrar returned the file to the Sec. Officer with a note 'please discuss'. However, the Sec. Officer, without noticing the note from the Assistant Registrar, returned the file to the petitioner for further action. He noticed the note of the Assistant Registrar which read 'Please discuss'. Subsequently, the petitioner, for more clarification, put up a remark, 'Please write as a note what is the matter she wants to discuss' and resubmitted the file again to the Sec. Officer on 6/9/2021. The Sec. Officer approached the Assistant Registrar, discussed the matter and returned the file to the petitioner by advising him to take further action on the basis of the examination manual. The petitioner submitted the file directly to the Deputy Registrar, who, after perusing the file, intimated to the Sec. Officer that the remarks noted by the petitioner were serious insubordination, and accordingly, the Deputy Registrar returned the file to the Sec. Officer on 6/9/2021. The petitioner submits that the file was disposed of on 6/9/2021, and there is no mechanism or methodology to retrieve the file once it is disposed of. On 9/9/2021, with the help of the IT Cell, the petitioner recreated a new file with all the attachments and sent the file through the proper channel to the concerned sec. . Later, on 21/11/2011, the Controller of Examinations issued orders to grant the University average mark to Gokul, and accordingly, his grievance was redressed.

(2.) On 26/11/2021, the petitioner was served with a transfer order transferring him from CBCSS 18 Sec. to ACB 5 Sec. pending enquiry on the allegation that the petitioner had committed insubordination and disposed of the file. This order is marked as Ext.P2. On 24/1/2022, the petitioner was also issued with a memo of charges, Ext.P3, seeking his explanation within 15 days to which the petitioner has submitted Ext.P4 reply. The petitioner submits that after the reply, no Presenting Officer was appointed, nor was a copy of the order or permission to cross-examine the witnesses granted to the petitioner. He was summoned by the enquiry officer and was issued a questionnaire to which he had answered. Ext.P5 enquiry report found that the petitioner had committed insubordination. The petitioner submits that he was not served with the enquiry report. On 13/5/2022 on receipt of Ext.P5, the second respondent issued a memo of charges to the petitioner proposing to impose a punishment withholding the increments permanently for six months (cumulative effect) and sought an explanation within seven days. The memo was marked as Ext.P5, to which the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 reply on 20/5/2022. On 21/6/2022, the third respondent issued an order to the petitioner imposing a punishment of barring of one increment permanently for six months (cumulative effect) by Ext.P8 order. The petitioner had submitted an application, Ext.P9, to the second respondent to give copies of the documents and evidence relied on by the enquiry officer, but the same was rejected on 3/8/2022. The third respondent, on 2/7/2022, again issued another punishment order imposing the very same punishment and cancelled Ext.P8 order without assigning any particular reason. The petitioner states that he had filed WP(C)No.28508/2022 challenging Ext.P10 order, producing the documents that he obtained under the Right to Information Act. Through Ext.P11 judgment, the writ petition was allowed, directing the petitioner to prefer an appeal against Ext.P10 order. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which is marked as Ext.P12. The petitioner received a notice to appear for a personal hearing before the fourth respondent for considering Ext.P12 appeal on 5/7/2022, and the petitioner appeared in person for the hearing on 22/7/2023. After hearing both the parties, Ext.P10 order was modified by cancelling the debarring of one increment for six months to one barring of one increment without cumulative effect by Ext.P13 order. The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 enquiry report, Exts.P10 and P13 orders.

(3.) The University has filed a counter stating that the petitioner was imposed with the minor penalty of punishment of withholding of one increment for six months with cumulative effect, based on the evidence that was let in and on the basis of the enquiry report, which clearly found indiscipline and insubordination of the petitioner. The University has also complied with the order of the Chancellor in appeal, which altered and reduced the punishment, withholding one increment for six months with cumulative effect. It is also pointed out that as per the relevant Mahatma Gandhi Statute, for imposing a minor penalty, the only requirement is to put the petitioner's notice, which he did, and Exts.P4 and P7 would clearly show that the petitioner had admitted the charges and had prayed for leniency in punishment. It was also found that he had ignored the superior's instructions, and in the enquiry, it was found that the file was deliberately deleted by the petitioner in order to hide the insubordination and indiscipline on his part, and it was not done by mistake or due to lack of knowledge. The records clearly showed the guilt of the petitioner. The enquiry officer had conducted an enquiry in the most fair and transparent manner. The petitioner was given a lenient treatment in appeal by the Chancellor, no grounds whatsoever are made out to interfere with the writ petition.