University of Calicut vs Dr. P.P. Mohamed and Another

Ramachandran Nair, J.—Appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge vacating the order issued by the Chancellor of the University and directing him to consider the appeal filed by the first Respondent against his termination by the Appellant-University as the Registrar of Calicut University.

Admittedly an appeal is provided against the termination of the first Respondent by the University before the Chancellor. In fact, appeal was also filed by the first Respondent against his termination from service before the Chancellor. However, appeal was rejected by the Chancellor as defective for the reason that it was not routed through the Syndicate. Even though counsel for the Appellant referred to the statutory provisions in the University Act providing for appeal and the procedure to be followed and the violations thereof, we do not think we should repeat it because all these are discussed in detail in the judgment W.A. No. 193/2011 2 of the learned Single Judge. After rejection of the appeal as defective by the Chancellor, the first Respondent submitted an appeal through proper channel i.e. through the Syndicate, which was rejected by the Chancellor and University for the reason that it is delayed as it was filed beyond 60 days which is the statutory period under the University Act to file appeal. In fact, when the appeal was rejected by the University and the Chancellor, the first Respondent challenged the same by filing W.P.(C). The University''s contention that a belated appeal cannot be entertained and this Court cannot condone the delay was turned down by the learned Single Judge holding that denial of an opportunity to contest the termination of first Respondent in appeal, will be a complete denial of the statutory rights. It is also stated that the appeal that was filed in the first round without delay was only defective in as much as it was not forwarded through the Syndicate. Counsel for the Appellant relied on decision of this Court in Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Krishna Poduval, and contended that if the statutory remedy is not pursued in full, this Court in exercise of W.A. No. 193/2011 3 jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot interfere. However, counsel for the first Respondent contended that the decision of the learned Single is accepted by the Chancellor, the appellate authority, and he has posted the appeal for hearing on 16.2.2011.

In the first place, we feel the appeal originally filed within time should have been treated only as defective and the Chancellor should have forwarded it to the Syndicate for processing and returning it to him for deciding on merit. In any case we do not find anything wrong in the learned Single Judge giving the first Respondent an opportunity to contest the adverse decision against him on merit. Since the Chancellor has accepted the Single Bench decision and has proceeded to decide the case on merits by posting the appeal to 16.2.2011, we leave freedom to the University to raise all objections on merits in the appeal filed by the first Respondent, as a Respondent. Since Standing Counsel for the University pointed out that the appeal has to be decided by the Chancellor after reference to the University Tribunal u/s 7(8) of the University Act, it is for the Chancellor to consider the same and decide the appeal in accordance with the procedure W.A. No. 193/2011 4 prescribed. The Chancellor should give sufficient opportunity to the University to substantiate their case by producing enquiry report or whatever is the other material relied on by them based on which first Respondent was compulsorily retired. If reference is required to the Tribunal, then certainly the Tribunal should hear both sides before sending it''s advice to the Chancellor. The Writ Appeal is disposed of directing the Chancellor to dispose of the appeal by complying with all the procedural formalities and after giving sufficient opportunity to both the parties, at the earliest.