IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 32747 of 2009(K)
1. NAJEEB, S/O.MUHAMMEDALI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DR.N.CHANDRAMOHANAKUMAR, PROFESSOR,
... Respondent
2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY
3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER
For Respondent :SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI,SC,COCHI U
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.S.R.BANNURMATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :09/12/2009
O R D E R
S.R. Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 32747 OF 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 9th day of December, 2009
JUDGMENT
A.K. Basheer, J.
Petitioner claims that he is the President of Indian Youth
Congress(I) Kalamassery Mandalam Committee and a social
and political worker who is interested in the activities and
functions of Cochin University of Science and Technology. He
alleges that respondent No.1 who is a Professor in Chemical
Oceanography in the University and in charge of Registrar
had participated in the “Human Chain” organised by the
Communist Party of India(Marxist) as could be seen from
Ext.P3 photograph. It is further alleged by the petitioner that
respondent No.1, by such conduct of his, has become
ineligible to continue in service, since he has violated the
service rules.
2. We do not propose to deal with the above and
various other averments made by the petitioner in the writ
petition. Suffice it to say, the prayer made by the petitioner
WP(C) No.32747 of 2009
-:2:-
is to issue a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ or
direction to respondents 2 and 3 to take appropriate disciplinary
proceedings against respondent No.1 for violating Rule 67 of the
Kerala Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1960 and Clause 11
of the Cochin University of Science and Technology First Statute
1991.
3. We have heard Sri.M.K. Aboobacker, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Sri.Aravindakshan Pillai, learned Standing
Counsel for the University.
4. It is contended by the learned Standing Counsel that the
Writ Petition is wholly unsustainable in the light of the judgment
in Dr.Puryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra[(1998) 7
SCC 273].
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of
the view that, the Writ Petition need not be kept pending on the
file of this Court, especially in view of the submission made by
learned counsel for the petitioner at the Bar that petitioner will be
satisfied if a direction is issued to respondents 2 and 3 to
consider Exts.P1 and P2 respectively and take a decision thereon.
WP(C) No.32747 of 2009
-:3:-
6. Since respondent No.3 has no administrative control
over the affairs of the University or its employees, we are not
satisfied that any direction need be issued to respondent No.3 in
this regard.
7. However, we direct respondent No.2 to consider and
pass orders on Ext.P1, if it has been received by him. Such a
decision shall be taken within two months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to mention that
petitioner shall be afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard
before any decision is taken in the matter. Petitioner shall send a
copy of the Writ Petition to respondent No.2 directly, since it is
submitted by learned Standing Counsel that he has been
instructed that respondent No.2 has not so far received Ext.P1.
Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
S.R. Bannurmath,
Chief Justice.
A.K. Basheer,
Judge.
ttb
WP(C) No.32747 of 2009
-:4:-