IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35851 of 2008(R)
1. DR.P.P.MOHAMMED, AGED 51 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE SYNDICATE, REPRESENTED BY ITS
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :16/12/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C).No.35851/2008
-------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of December, 2008.
JUDGMENT
The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P9, a
resolution of the Syndicate of the respondent University
placing the petitioner under suspension. There is a further
prayer to reinstate the petitioner in service.
2. When this writ petition came up for admission on
4.12.2008, it was adjourned by 10 days with a direction to
the Standing Counsel for the University to obtain instructions
in the matter. Today, though initially on hearing the counsel
for both sides, I had directed the Counsel for the University
to file a statement, counsel for the petitioner insisted that the
matter should be disposed of today itself as otherwise, to
quote him “there is no purpose in filing this writ petition”. In
view of his instance, I had to hear and decide the case on the
materials available and considering the rival submissions
made by both sides.
WP(c).No.35851/08 2
3. The prayer for quashing Ext.P9, the order placing
the petitioner under suspension, is made based on
Ext.P10 judgment. Ext.P10 is the judgment rendered by
this court in WP(c).No.22831/2007 which was filed by the
petitioner challenging Ext.P9 order. That writ petition was
disposed of with a direction to complete the enquiry within
3 months. Paragraph 4 of the judgment, being relevant,
is extracted below for reference.
“In the facts and circumstances of the case, I
think, substantial justice would be sub-served by
permitting either party to move the enquiry
officer to complete the enquiry within a period of
three months. On filing such a petition, the
enquiry officer shall expedite the enquiry and
complete the enquiry within a period of three
months. If the enquiry is not over within three
months, not because of the fault of the petitioner,
the petitioner would be entitled to move this
Court praying for appropriate reliefs including the
one for reinstatement.”(emphasis supplied)
WP(c).No.35851/08 3
4. It is stated that, in pursuance to Ext.P10
judgment, the petitioner submitted Ext.P11 representation
requesting the enquiry officer to complete the enquiry
within the 3 months period specified in Ext.P10. According
to the petitioner, the University protracted the proceedings
and the enquiry remains incomplete, although the 3
months period specified in Ext.P10 has already expired.
Petitioner submits that the time fixed in Ext.P10 judgment
expired on 30.11.2008 and thereupon he requested for
reinstatement and that the same was not even considered.
It is in that background the writ petition was filed with the
prayers mentioned above.
5. As already noticed, according the learned
counsel for the petitioner, it was the University which
protracted the proceedings. It is stated that even for chief
examination of PW3, it took 8 sittings spanning over a
period of more than a month. It is stated that this is the
attitude adopted by the University and since the delay
occurred is for reasons attributable to the University, he is
justified in seeking reinstatement as ordered in Ext.P10
WP(c).No.35851/08 4
judgment.
6. From the operative portion of the judgment
itself, it is evident that the petitioner will be justified in
demanding reinstatement only if the enquiry is not over
not for the fault of the petitioner and the question is
whether the petitioner has succeeded in establishing this
fact.
7. The standing counsel for the University refers
to me the proceedings of the enquiry produced as Ext.P12
particularly the proceedings of 25.11.2008, 26.11.2008
and 29.11.2008. According to him, it was because of the
attitude adopted by the petitioner that the delay has
occurred. It is also stated that the Enquiry Officer has made
every effort to complete the enquiry within the time limit
and that the petitioner has engaged a practicing lawyer
who is not available during working hours. According to
him, for cross-examination of PW3 itself, he has taken 1
month and 10 days and the non-availability of defence
counsel has also contributed to the delay. It is also
pointed out that the petitioner now filed a list of 14
WP(c).No.35851/08 5
witnesses and he has also applied for recalling PW3 whose
examination has already been completed. It is also pointed
out that the enquiry is now scheduled to be conducted on a
day to day basis from 22nd December, 2008 onwards.
8. As stated above, petitioner can seek relief only
if he succeeds in establishing that it was only due to the
fault of the University or the Enquiry Officer that the
enquiry has not been completed. Ext.P12 is the
proceedings of the Enquiry Officer. A perusal of Ext.P12
shows that on various occasions enquiry had to be deferred
at the instance of the petitioner or his lawyer, whose non
availability also has been mentioned in Ext.P12. If that is
the position, the petitioner who has taken almost 6 weeks
to cross-examine PW3 and has now applied for his recalling
and has submitted a list of 14 witnesses, cannot say that
University or the Enquiry Officer alone are to be blamed for
not completing the enquiry.
9. From the aforesaid facts I am not in a position
to conclude that it was only on account of the fault of the
University or the Enquiry Officer that the enquiry remains
incomplete.
WP(c).No.35851/08 6
Added to this is the submission made by the
Standing Counsel for the University that the request for
reinstatement stated to have been filed by the petitioner
is not even received by them.
For the above reasons the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed and I do so.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/