Kerala High Court Quashes Show Cause Notice Issued To KTU's Former VC Ciza Thomas

The Kerala High Court on Friday quashed the show cause notice issued to Dr. Ciza Thomas, who was temporarily appointed as the Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Techological University, by the Chancellor of the University who is the Governor of the State. 

A show cause notice had been issued to Thomas as a prelude to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against her by the State Government, on the ground that she had violated Rule 48 of Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1960 (restriction on Government servants from being engaged directly or indirectly in any trade, business, or employment). 

Perusing Rule 48 of the Rules, 1960, the Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen observed that the provision only prevents a Government employee directly or indirectly engaging in any trade or business or from undertaking any new employment, while he is continuing to be a Government servant. 

The Court added that in the present case, the petitioner's appointment had not been voluntary, but pursuant to the appointment made by the Chancellor, upon invoking the relevant statutory provisions. 

"The appointment of the petitioner by the Chancellor, who is the Governor of Kerala, admittedly, is by invoking the statutory provisions. Rule 48 of the UGC Regulations does not contemplate any violation of Government servant’s conduct if such an appointment is made through the process of law. The rule only contemplates taking up of employment by the Government servant by his own volition. If proper interpretation of law is accorded as above, it can be seen that show cause notice is misconceived and legally unsustainable. The Government servant can only be proceeded for disciplinary action against violation of any existing rules or law. If the appointment is made invoking statutory provisions in another service, and not based on the individual application of the Government servant, that will not amount to violation of Rule 48," the Bench observed. 

The tussle between the State Government and the Chancellor of the University as regards Thomas' appointment arose in light of the Apex Court decision in Dr. Sreejith PS v. Dr. Rajasree M.S. & Anr, dated 21.10.2022, declaring the appointment of the incumbent VC Dr MS Rajasree as void ab initio, holding that she had been appointed contrary to UGC Regulations. Thomas, who had been the senior Joint Director of Technical Education, was subsequently given additional charge as the VC of KTU, by the Chancellor, in the interregnum, consequent to the Dr. Rajasree vacating the office.

The Chancellor appointed Thomas upon finding that some of the recommendees of the Government did not possess the necessary qualifications. 

The Court in this case also noted that while a Tribunal or Court shall not normally interfere with a show cause notice or initiation of disciplinary action, it could do so when the notice itself was ex facie arbitrary or issued without authorit, or issued on a misconceived interpretation of law that defines the conduct Rules.

"The very purpose of disciplinary action is to probe into the allegations levelled against the delinquent employee in the charge memo and find guilt or non-guilt after inquiry. The Court, while entertaining a challenge against a show cause notice, if can form an opinion on an adjudication of pure question of law that the validity of show cause notice can be decided, nothing prevents the Court from deciding upon the challenge made against the show cause notice," it added. 

The Court also observed that since Thomas' appointment had been justified by it earlier, the legality of her appointment could not be reopened, since the inter party judgment would bind the Government, as well. 

It also could not find merit in the Additional Advocate General Shri Asok M.Cherian’s argument that it was only the conduct of the petitioner that was the subject matter of the disciplinary proceedings, and not the legality of her appointment. 

The show-cause notice issued to Thomas was thus quashed. 

Thomas' plea was moved through Senior Advocate George Poonthottam, and Advocates Nisha George and A.L. Navaneeth Krishnan.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 585

Case Title: Dr. Ciza Thomas v. State of Kerala 

Case Number: O.P. (KAT) No. 170 of 2023