DR.BINU GEORGE VARGHESE v. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY

a detailed enquiry into the matter. The petitioner challenged the Ext.P1 suspension order by filing W.P.(C) No.2634/2018. It was contended in the said writ petition that the petitioner was served with a memo of charges and statement of allegations, marked as Ext.P2. Ext.P2 memo of charges contained allegations regarding the conduct of the Inter-University Men's Volleyball Tournament held at Pala in December 2015, and the Inter- University Men's and Women's Softball Tournament held at Aluva in January 2017.

By Ext.P3 the Vice-Chancellor appointed one Ramesh Raghavan, Deputy Registrar (Academic) and Sri. Krishnakumar J., Section Officer, for assisting the Enquiry Committee. W.P.(C) No.2634/2018 was disposed of by judgment dated 23/02/2018, directing the competent authority to consider whether keeping the petitioner under suspension was necessary. The petitioner had also replied to the memo of charges by Ext.P5. The Syndicate, by Ext P6, dated 6/4/2018, resolved to reject the petitioner's request to review the suspension and directed continuance of the suspension till the completion of the disciplinary proceedings. There was a direction by the Syndicate to submit the report within two months and also to comply with the procedure under Chapter W.P.(C) No. 31903/2022 ..4.. 4 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997. Even after the lapse of six months, nothing happened and the petitioner was continuing under suspension.

He had filed Ext.P7 representation to revoke the suspension, and since no action was taken on the same, he approached this Court again by filing W.P.(C) No.24695/2018 for a direction to revoke the suspension. As per Ext.P8 judgment dated 31/07/2018, this Court found that more than four months have elapsed after the decision of the third respondent Syndicate, and therefore, the petitioner cannot be kept under suspension. Accordingly, the University was directed to reinstate the petitioner, making it clear that the petitioner shall not in any way interfere with the ongoing enquiry or attempt to influence any of the witnesses. By Exts.P9 and P10 orders of the University, the judgment of this Court was complied with. The petitioner submits that, despite the lapse of more than five years, the formal enquiry against the petitioner has not been completed. It is also pointed out that the petitioner, after giving the reply to the memo, was never called to give evidence or to cross-examine the witnesses, and in short, no procedure as prescribed under Statute 46 to 48 of Chapter 4 of Part III of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997 W.P.(C) No. 31903/2022 ..5.. has been followed in the instant case.

By Ext.P11 notification, the sub-committee members of the Syndicate appointed earlier were replaced following the re-constitution of the Syndicate. However, a report was prepared by the Committee before the Vice Chancellor as per Ext.P12, which was dated 07/07/2020. It is also seen that Dr.R.Pragash and Prof. Tommichan Joseph had affixed their signature along with the endorsement as '19-06-2020', and the date of receipt of Ext.P12 report by the second respondent was '07-07-2020' and by the Registrar of the first respondent University on '08-07-2020'. The petitioner submits that the Enquiry Committee could not have given any report after the reconstitution. The petitioner also points out that by Ext.P17 dated 22/09/2020, the third respondent Syndicate, in its meeting held on 26/08/2020, resolved to regularize the advance amount of Rs.7,00,000/- sanctioned to the petitioner from the University fund for the conduct of the 2016-2017 Inter-University Men's and Women's Softball matches held at U.C.College, Aluva. By Ext.P18 dated 28/09/2020, the third respondent Syndicate, in its meeting held on 26/08/2020, resolved to regularize the advance amount of Rs.6,00,000/- sanctioned to the petitioner from the University fund for the conduct of 2016-2017 South W.P.(C) No. 31903/2022 ..6.. Zone/All India Inter-University Men's Volleyball matches held at St.Thomas College, Pala.

Based on this, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Sri. K. Anand argues that both charges levelled in the memo of charges do not survive after the regularization of the amounts sanctioned to the petitioner. He also points out that by Ext.P2 dated 11.12.2020, the audit wing of the University of Finance Department had considered the petitioner's request, Exts.P19 and P20 and had recommended regularization of sanctioning a provisional advance amount of Rs.45,40,000/- to the petitioner and accordingly, the second respondent has on 13/11/2020, issued direction to place the matter for consideration before the third respondent Syndicate. It is also pointed out that as per Ext. P 26 dated 08/10/2021, the Audit wing of the University of Finance Department considered the request of the petitioner given as per Exts.P23 and P25 and had duly recommended regularization of sanctioning the provisional advance amount of Rs.30,00,000/- to the petitioner and accordingly, the second respondent has on 28/07/2021 issued direction to place the matter for consideration before the third respondent Syndicate.

It is in the light of the subsequent developments that the W.P.(C) No. 31903/2022 ..7.. learned counsel argued that nothing survives for continuing the enquiry proceedings initiated, apart from his contention that no enquiry as contemplated under the Statutes, namely Chapter 4 of Part III of Mahatma Gandhi University Statute, 1997 has been conducted so far. Learned Senior Counsel also points out that the petitioner's wife was diagnosed with breast cancer in the year 2018 and had undergone treatment for the same. In 2020, the petitioner's wife was again diagnosed with breast cancer and was advised to undergo surgery to remove both breasts and to pursue chemotherapy treatment. The petitioner is placed in such a situation, and in view of the huge financial constraints and also the non-completion of the enquiry proceedings initiated, a representation was submitted on 20/08/2020 before the second respondent on humanitarian grounds to disburse the salary for the period of suspension from 12/01/2018 to 01/08/2018 and also to accord sanction to release the withheld increments due to the petitioner for the years 2018, 2019 and

2020. No action has been taken on Ext.P13 so far for which the present writ petition is filed.

The University has filed an affidavit on behalf of the first respondent, wherein it is stated as follows: W.P.(C) No. 31903/2022 ..8.. “10. It is true to the facts that the Syndicate accepted Ext. P12 Enquiry Report and directed two member Enquiry Commission (Sri. P Harikrishanan and Sri. Biju Thomas) to submit the enquiry report at the earliest. The charges leveled against the petitioner were regarding the non-regularization of advance amount of Rs. 6,00,000 and Rs.7,00,000 as per the P2 memo charges and part of the advance taken was regularized by the University vide Ext. P 17 and Ext.P18. This itself amply proves the fairness on the side of the University and that any delay in concluding the enquiry will not cause any hardship to the petitioner as he has been reinstated in the position as Director of SPESS.

11. Further regularization process for the advance amount of Rs. 45,40,000/- have been made with the submission of rectifications based on the defects pointed out by the Registrar of the University. This act also manifests the rationality of the authority. The petitioner himself has agreed that the university Finance Department has duly recommended for regularization of sanctioning provisional advances amounting to Rs.45,40,000/-. This shows that the enquiry recommendation against the petitioner is not intentional.

12. As per the Exts. P22 and P26, some of the provisional advances taken by the petitioner have been regularized. This shows that University does not have any prejudiced approach to the delinquent employee, even though the irregularities committed by the petitioner as a Director of a department is highly W.P.(C) No. 31903/2022 ..9.. unbecoming with that of his position. Hence, the allegation of wilfull delaying of concluding the proceedings is completely wide off the mark and is denied.

13. It is submitted that as and when the enquiry procedure are over and based on the findings of the enquiry and the decisions taken by the authority thereof all increments that are withheld will be dealt with in accordance with law. The tenure of Dr. R.Pragash and Prof. Thommichan Joseph as Syndicate members got over as per Ext P11 and this had attributed the delay for concluding the exercise scrupulously following the procedures as regards enquiry.

14. The enquiry against the petitioner is continuing as per the Chapter 4 of Part III of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes 1997”

I also heard Sri. Surin George Iype learned Standing Counsel for the University.

On consideration of the pleadings, as noted above, it is to be noted that despite the lapse of more than five years and contrary to the directions of the Syndicate in Ext P6 to submit the report within two months, the enquiry has not been completed so far. It is pertinent to note that the Audit wing of the University finance department duly W.P.(C) No. 31903/2022 ..10.. recommended the regularisation of the advance amounts sanctioned to the petitioner, which happens to be the subject matter of the charges in Ext.P2 memo of charges. It is seen that the third respondent, Syndicate, has not passed any formal orders pursuant to the report furnished by the Audit Wing of the University finance department through Exts.P22 and P26. None of the steps contemplated under Chapter 4 of Part III of Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997 has been done or the enquiry completed despite the lapse of five years.