Kerala High Court Quashes Order Removing Joint Registrar of Central University of Kerala From Service

The Kerala High Court recently quashed all charges levelled against the Joint Registrar of the Central University of Kerala removing him from service and held that all these charges were hit by the principle of no evidence. 

A Division Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Gopinath P thereby directed the University to clear all the consequential benefits, arrears of salary and other service benefits within three months in favor of the petitioner. 

Factual Background:

The petitioner S. Gopinath was serving as the Joint Registrar in the Central University of Kerala, (CUK). He was suspended on 4th May 2017. 

During the suspension, he was abruptly removed from service for allegedly renting a building to house the University's boys' hostel agreeing to pay a monthly rent as well as an advance of three months without sanction from the Vice-Chancellor or the Registrar of the University.

According to the respondents, this caused a loss of Rs. 3.5 lakhs during the academic year of 2013-2014 to the University. 

It was further alleged that the petitioner rented a building without obtaining a rent reasonableness certificate from the Central Public Works Department, and also failed to enter into any sort of agreement before paying the rent.

Moreover, the petitioner had obtained the Rent Reasonableness Certificate two years after making the payment and had paid an excess amount as compared to the amount shown in the certificate.

Accordingly, the enquiry officer filed a report against the petitioner after an enquiry and submitted that the charges levelled were proved against him. This led to his removal from service with immediate effect. 

In a meeting held by the Executive Council of the University, it was decided to finalize the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. 

He challenged this before the Single Judge of the Court. However, the Single Judge found that there was no error in the proceedings initiated by the University or in the final order issued by the University warranting exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 

Hence, the petitioner preferred an appeal. 

Findings of the Court

The Division Bench, upon perusal of the documents produced before it, noted that a Search Committee was constituted by the University to locate suitable buildings that could be taken on rent considering the urgent need for a boy's hostel. 

The files disclosed that the Search Committee had prepared certain Minutes, which were referred to by the petitioner in the note he put up on 12th August 2013, where he urged that the rent was to be paid only after an assessment by the CPWD. 

It was also observed that this note was then seen by the Registrar in charge, who had then directed that the files be placed before the Vice-Chancellor for approval of the proposal, after obtaining the financial concurrence of the Finance Officer. 

The files were found to be subsequently approved by the Vice-Chancellor and the Finance Officer. On these grounds, the Bench ruled that the consequential action taken by the petitioner was on the basis of these approvals. 

"We are of the view that the findings of the Enquiry Officer not only fail to establish the specific charges against the writ petitioner but is clearly hit by the principle of 'no evidence'. Even if we were to take the entire findings of the Enquiry Officer, to be based on some evidence, the fact remains that such findings also do not relate to the specific charges alleged against the writ petitioner." 

Similarly, the Court found that the management had continued with the arrangement made by the petitioner even after receipt of the certificate, and thereby concluded that the charges pressed against the petitioner were hollow. 

"...the fact that the same arrangement was continued even after the receipt of the RRC from the CPWD speaks volumes of the hollowness of the charge levelled against the writ petitioner."

Therefore, the Division Bench observed that charges, as alleged against the petitioner, could not be established and that the findings of the enquiry officer were not based on any evidence.

It was also found that even if the charges were completely true and supported by the evidence, the punishment imposed would have been shockingly disproportionate as per the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Another v. G. Ganayutham [AIR 1997 SC 3387].

Allowing the appeal, the Court set aside the order of the Single Bench and quashed the penalty of removal from service imposed on the petitioner and the Minutes of the meeting of the Executive Council whereby the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him were taken. 

Since the petitioner had retired on 31st my 2021, the Court ruled that he will be entitled to all consequential service benefits stemming from its finding that the above proceedings cannot be sustained in law.

Therefore, the Bench remarked as such:

"Any arrears of salary and other service benefits payable to the writ petitioner, as a result of the above will be calculated and paid to the writ petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment."

Case Title: S. Gopinath v. Central University of Kerala & Ors.

Click Here To Read The Order