G. Rajeswari vs State of Kerala

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.—The writ petitioner is the appellant. She is an Additional Secretary to Government. The writ petition was filed by her challenging Ext.P4, memo of charges dated 27.10.2007 and also Ext.P6, order dated 13.1.2009, suspending her from service.

The brief facts of the case are the following. The Manager of St. Albert''s College filed Writ Petition No. 18594 of 2006 seeking affiliation to the M.G. University for one of the new courses started by the College. The appellant is accused of having issued instructions, which were illegal, to defend the case to the learned Advocate General. It was felt by the Government that the instructions were contrary to the Statutes of the M.G. University and policy of the Government concerning starting of new courses. At the stage of preliminary enquiry, though the appellant admitted the issuance of such instructions, later she claimed that she has no role whatsoever in issuing such a direction. It appears the Government have a case that the files were manipulated by her, subsequently, to appear that she did not issue such instructions. Concerning the issuance of instruction to the Advocate General, the Government held a preliminary enquiry and based on the finding in that enquiry, Ext.P4 charge sheet was issued. She submitted Ext.P5 explanation. Later, by Ext.P6, she was suspended from service. The writ petition was filed challenging Exts.P4 and P6, on various grounds, including legal malice.

The respondents resisted the writ petition by filing a counter affidavit. They asserted that in fact the disputed instructions were issued by the appellant only and later the records were manipulated to appear that she has nothing to do with it. To disable the appellant from interfering with the disciplinary proceedings, she has been placed under suspension, it was contended.

The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, declined to interfere with Ext.P4. But the learned Judge expressed the view that since the appellant has been transferred from the Secretariat to another establishment and from there to a third establishment, it may not be necessary to keep her under suspension to prevent her from interfering with the enquiry. So, the learned Judge directed the Government to consider whether her continued suspension is necessary. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, this appeal is filed.

Shri. George Poonthottam, learned Counsel for the appellant, contended that even assuming what is stated in Ext.P4 is correct, still no misconduct is made out. We find it difficult to accept the said contention. The Statute of the M.G. University provides that the University shall consider the question of affiliation after ascertaining the views of the Government also. According to the Government, they have taken a decision not to grant affiliation to any such new courses. So, the instruction given to the Advocate General that sanction of affiliation is a matter between the Management and the University and the Government has nothing to do with it, being an academic matter, is not in tune with the Statute of the University and Policy of the Government.

If it is found that the petitioner has in fact issued the above instructions to the learned Advocate General, it cannot be said that she is free from fault. Whether she has actually issued the instructions or not is a matter to be found in the enquiry. So, we are of the view that if everything that is stated in Ext.P4 is correct, it will disclose a misconduct from the part of the appellant. Therefore, the challenge against Ext.P4 was rightly repelled by the learned Single Judge.

In the matter of suspension, we are of the view that the maximum relief that could be granted has already been granted by the learned Single Judge. We agree with the reasons and conclusions of the learned Judge on that point. We do not propose to go into the various possible contentions, that could be raised for and against Ext.P6, as the same is likely to prejudice one side or the other. So, it is not proper for us to venture to do that, when the matter is already remitted to the Government for fresh consideration.

In the result, this appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.