K.K.SYAM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Writ Petitions are filed challenging the Government Order (GO(Rt)No.1988/2017/H.Edn.) dated 3.11.2017. By the order impugned in these writ petitions, the Government allowed the appeal filed by the delinquent employee against the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on him, set aside the enquiry conducted by the Management and directed a fresh enquiry to be conducted. Aggrieved by the Government order, in so far as it directs de novo enquiry, the delinquent employee has filed W.P(C) No.2050 of 2018. The Management has filed WP(C) No.7661 of 2018 seeking to quash the Government Order in its entirety.

(2.) The essential facts leading up to the filing of the Writ Petitions are narrated hereunder. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status in WP(C) No.2050 of 2018. The petitioner had entered the service of the S.N.Trust Polytechnic College(herein after called the College) as Tradesman in the year 1997. He was promoted to the post of Trade Instructor (Plumbing) in the year 2006. While continuing as Trade Instructor, disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the petitioner by issuing him with a statement of allegations and memo of charges dated 28.6.2013. In the memo of charges it was alleged that, on 8.1.2013, the petitioner had manhandled one D.Sajeevan, working as Trade Instructor (Civil) at the college, as a result of which Sajeevan sustained injuries and had to be hospitalized. That, based on Sajeevan's complaint, Crime No.66 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294, and 323 IPC was registered against the petitioner at the Kottiyam Police Station. That on 8.1.2013, the petitioner, in an inebriated state had abused the Principal of the College inside his room and had also abused the Office Superintendent, created unruly scene outside the office and had left the College without permission by around 2.20 p.m. Not being satisfied with the written statement submitted by the petitioner in reply to the memo of charges and statement of allegations, the Management conducted a formal enquiry, in which the petitioner was found guilty of all the charges. Based on the findings in the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority imposed the petitioner with the punishment of dismissal from service. The petitioner challenged the order of dismissal in appeal, which ultimately resulted in the Government Order under challenge in these Writ Petitions.

(3.) The Government, after a detailed consideration of all relevant materials, found that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. It was also found that there was procedural violation inasmuch as the requirement of obtaining previous sanction of the Director of Technical Education before imposing the punishment of dismissal from service, contemplated under Rule 36 of the Kerala Technical Education (Private Engineering Colleges/Polytechnics) Service Rules, 1975 (herein after called the 'Rules') was not strictly adhered to. The Government also found that the enquiry was vitiated for violation of the principles of natural justice for the reason that the Enquiry Officer was a member of the Management Trust to which the College belonged and for the reason that appointment of the Enquiry Officer was contrary to the procedure prescribed under Rule 37(2) of the Rules. On a consideration of the chronological order of events the Government came to the conclusion that there existed every reason to believe that the applicant had been subjected to series of hardships inflicted upon him by the Management of the College, which included delaying of declaration of probation, refusal to grant leave, non- disbursal of salary, disciplinary action and punishment of barring of increment etc. The Government found that there was no substantial evidence to prove that the employee is a habitual offender.