IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22831 of 2007(R)
1. DR.P.P.MOHAMMED, AGED 50 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR,
3. THE SYNDICATE, REPRESENTED BY ITS
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :08/08/2008
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO. 22831 OF 2007
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th August, 2008
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, while working as the Registrar of the University of
Calicut, was placed under suspension as per Ext.P27 order dated
19.7.2007, which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. Learned single
Judge of this court stayed the operation and implementation of Ext.P27
order as per the interim order dated 25.7.2007. The respondents in the
Writ Petition challenged that order in W.A.No.1846 of 2007. The Division
Bench allowed the Writ Appeal as per the judgment dated 26.7.2007 and
set aside the interim order dated 25.7.2007. While disposing of the Writ
Appeal, the Division Bench noticed that the petitioner had handed over
charge on 19.7.2007 and a new incumbent had already assumed the
office on that date itself. The Division Bench observed that under such
circumstances, there was no justification for directing reinstatement.
2. Though the observation made in the judgment in the Writ
Appeal filed against the interim order as such may not be binding while
disposing of the Writ Petition finally, the fact remains that the petitioner
was placed under suspension as per order dated 19.7.2007 and that
another person has taken charge and she is continuing as the Registrar of
W.P.(C) NO. 22831 OF 2007
:: 2 ::
the University. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner as well as
the Standing Counsel for the University that an enquiry officer was
appointed and proceedings for enquiry are going on. It is also stated that
one witness was examined and that the enquiry is being proceeded with.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the
petitioner is fully co-operating with the enquiry, the matter is not being
proceeded with expeditiously and only one witness was examined though
the trial actually commenced on 23.2.2008. Learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the University submitted that the matter was being
adjourned at the request of the petitioner and due to the non-co-operation
of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
submission made by the Standing Counsel for the University is not
supported by any pleadings or affidavit, whereas the submission made by
the petitioner is supported by an affidavit accompanying I.A.No.9295 of
2008. It is not necessary to decide that dispute for the disposal of the
Writ Petition as it is not very much relevant in this context.
4. 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
W.P.(C) NO. 22831 OF 2007
:: 3 ::
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.
With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition is closed.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/