MANAGER CHRISTIAN COLLEGE Vs. JENIFER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision is by the Manager of the Christian College , kattakada and the Principal of the said College against the decision of the university Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum. For continued absence on leave for over one week, the Manager of the College terminated the services of a peon in that college under the provisions of chapter LIII, Statute No. 16 of the First Statutes of the Kerala University statutes 1972. Opportunity was afforded to the peon as required by the said provision. THE reason for the action was that certain criminal proceedings were pending against the peon, and C. C. 41 of 1977 on the file of the Judicial IInd Class Magistrate was pending enquiry against him for offences under S. 380 and 461 IPC. That enquiry terminated in an acquittal in favour of the peon. On appeal from the Management's action, the tribunal directed reinstatement of the peon holding that as the major punishment of termination of service had been inflicted on the peon, the procedure for framing charge followed by an opportunity for explanation and an enquiry, if demanded, should have been followed. As this was not done, the tribunal held the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated and directed reinstatement of the peon.

(2.) IT is necessary to notice the relevant statutory provisions relating to the action involved. Chapter L of the First Statutes deals with disciplinary action against the teachers of private colleges. Statute No. 8 specifies the penalties that can be imposed for good and sufficient reasons. Penalty No. (vii) is dismissal from service. Statute 10 provides for procedure for imposing major penalties. This provision makes it clear that the penalty of dismissal from service is one of the major penalties. The procedure provided requires an opportunity being afforded to the delinquent proceeded against, for explanation to the charges and to demand a formal enquiry into them. IT is only thereafter that anyone of the major penalties can be inflicted. Chapter LIII, R. 16 provides for termination for absence without leave. The rule is as follows: "16. Absence without leave: The absence of a non-teaching employee, without leave, shall entail forfeiture of pay and allowances. If he absents himself without leave for more than seven days continuously, his service shall be liable to be terminated. Provided that the employee shall be given a reasonable opportunity to explain the reason for his absence. " These Rules which are laid down with respect to the teaching staff of the colleges are made applicable to non-teaching staff as well, by R. 23 of Chapter LIII which reads: "23. Disciplinary Proceedings. The provision in the chapter on disciplinary action against teachers of private colleges shall mutatis mutandis apply to the non-teaching staff also. " In the light of the above provisions, the question for consideration is whether, for a termination of service for continued absence without leave under Chapter LIII Statute 16, the requirement of an enquiry into the charges and a finding as to guilt contemplated by Chapter L Statute 10 of the First Statutes should be followed or not. We think that it should; and that the requirement of an opportunity to explain the period of continued absence is only an additional safeguard or a preliminary step before a termination of service is effected in accordance with Chapter LIII. Dismissal from service is the highest or the most major form of punishment that can be inflicted. IT is one of those punishments for which the constitutional guarantee under Art. 311 is available to the holder of a civil post. For the same punishment, we do not think it was the" intention of the framers of the Statutes to dispense with this important guarantee and to provide for a summary termination on mere absence on leave. The view taken by the Appellate Tribunal to this effect was correct.