AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohammed Nias C.P., J
W.A.No.1395/2023 is preferred by the writ petitioner aggrieved by the interim order dated 24.7.2023 that varied the earlier orders dated 5.7.2023 and 10.7.2023.
Earlier, the Executive Council of the University took note of the newspaper reports published in the Kerala Kaumudy Daily and Malayala Manorama Daily dated 13.02.2022 and 21.02.2022, respectively, regarding the false allegations against the University, which seriously hampered the reputation and credibility of the University among the public and decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against two members of the staff, which included the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner had challenged the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by the respondent University, and this Court, by judgment in W.P(C) No.25659/2022 dated 7.10.2022, passed the following directions:-
“Taking note of the afore, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:
(a) The petitioners will place before the Vice-Chancellor an apposite apology in any manner that they may deem fit and this shall be done within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(b) On the afore apology being received by the Vice-Chancellor, said Authority will consider the same and if it is found to be apposite, then close all further proceedings - including the disciplinary action – against the petitioners through an appropriate order, which shall be issued within a period of one month thereafter.
(c) Needless to say, every legal right of the petitioners, to make their voices against any legitimate apprehension or inequity, is left open; but they are warned that such action shall not breach the limits of decency, decorum, discipline and the parameters of the applicable Regulations.
Needless to say, since this Court has not entered into the merits of any of the contentions, they are all left open to be pursued by the petitioners - including by approaching this Court again, if, for any reason, Vice-Chancellor decides against stopping of action against them in terms of the afore directions.”
The petitioner contends that he, acting on the above directions, had filed two apologies, marked as Exts.P11 and P12 in the instant writ petition, which the Vice Chancellor accepted and decided to drop the proceedings against him. However, the third respondent, the Executive Council of NUALS, taking a stand contrary to Ext.P10 judgment, had decided to continue with the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner through Ext.P13 and Ext.P14. It is challenging the same that the above writ petition was filed.
The learned single Judge, who considered the matter at the time of admission, had stayed the further proceedings by orders mentioned above. Later, by the order impugned in the writ appeal, the learned single Judge, finding that Ext.P14 is only a show cause notice to which the petitioner can submit his reply, directed that the proceedings can go on, but no final orders should be passed without getting orders from this Court. It is this order that is impugned in the writ appeal.
When the writ appeal came up for admission, we directed the petitioner to file his reply in response to Ext.P14, which the appellant/writ petitioner did. We also directed the writ petition to be posted along with the appeal.
Today, when the matter is taken up, the extract of the minutes of the meeting dated 13.8.2022 pertaining to the proceedings initiated against the writ petitioner was made available, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:-
“The Executive Council, after considering the unconditional apology submitted by Shri. Anil K., and the opinion of Adv. Thushara James, Standing Counsel of the University, resolved to accept the unconditional apology and his undertaking not to repeat such action in future which may cause disrepute to any Superior Officer or the University. It was also resolved to impose a minor penalty of "censure” on Mr. Anil K., and to close the disciplinary proceedings against him.”
The learned counsel for the writ petitioner also submits that he is accepting the punishment of censure meted out to him and will abide by the decision/directions of the Executive Council, in letter and spirit. We record the same.
In the light of the above development, nothing further remains to be considered in the writ appeal or in the writ petition. Accordingly, they are closed.