T. PRABHAKARAN NADAR Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner in this appeal is aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.03.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing WP(C) No.6332 of 2014. The writ petition was filed by the appellant challenging the order of the Chancellor of the University of Kerala dated 10.12.2013 evidenced by Ext.P9 in the writ petition. As per Ext.P9, the punishment imposed on the appellant has been interfered with and reduced.

(2.) The writ petition was filed in the following facts and circumstances: The appellant, while working as Administrative Officer of the Department of Statistics, University of Kerala, was promoted as Assistant Registrar. It was found thereafter that he was guilty of temporary misappropriation of University funds and was proceeded against, departmentally. A memo of charges was served on him. Since the explanation offered by the appellant was not satisfactory, a domestic enquiry was conducted. The appellant submitted his written statement of defence contending that, though he had retained the University funds, he had returned the same when he realised the mistake. It was contended that, he had remitted the amount with interest. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 29.03.2011, recommending a major punishment. The Vice Chancellor issued a show cause notice to the appellant. He objected pointing out that he had not been served with a copy of the report. Therefore, a copy thereof was served on him and a personal hearing was afforded to him by the Vice Chancellor. He then admitted in writing before the Vice Chancellor that the amounts collected by him had been retained in an almirah for two years and that the same had been remitted to the University fund only subsequently. Thereafter, by an order dated 08.03.2012, the Vice Chancellor reverted the appellant to the lower post of Section Officer for a period of four years.

(3.) The aggrieved appellant challenged the same before the Chancellor in an appeal. He was represented before the Chancellor through an Advocate. The Chancellor heard the matter on 29.10.2013, considered his contentions and by Ext.P9 order found that a reduction in the penalty imposed on him was necessary. Accordingly, the reversion of the appellant has been reduced from four years to one year. It was challenging Ext.P9 that the appellant had filed the writ petition.