04 September 2024 Civil Suits >> Civil & Consumer Law  

The Supreme Court recently dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Kerala Agricultural University (KAU) challenging the High Court of Kerala's judgment in a case involving the termination of an employee, T.P. Murali. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to prescribed procedures in disciplinary actions against employees.

Background of the Case:

The dispute centers around T.P. Murali, who served as an Assistant Professor at KAU. Murali had taken a long Leave Without Allowance (LWA) from September 5, 1999, to September 4, 2019, to work at a Community College in Pennsylvania, USA. Upon the expiry of his leave, he failed to return to duty promptly, citing severe health issues and travel restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic as reasons for his delay. In response to his failure to resume work on time, KAU issued a charge memo and initiated a departmental inquiry. The Vice Chancellor, acting on the inquiry report, terminated Murali's services effective September 5, 2019. Murali contested this decision through a writ petition in the High Court of Kerala.

High Court's Ruling:

The Single Judge of the High Court initially upheld the termination, citing Murali's violation of statutory rules regarding the rejoining of duty after LWA. However, Murali appealed this decision, and the Division Bench of the High Court overturned the Single Judge’s ruling. The Division Bench found that the university had not followed the proper procedure for conducting the disciplinary inquiry and that Murali had made a genuine effort to return to duty despite exceptional circumstances.

The Division Bench did not, however, reinstate Murali due to his superannuation during the pendency of the litigation. Instead, it directed KAU to calculate and disburse Murali's pensionary benefits according to applicable statutes and rules.

Supreme Court's Decision:

KAU then appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn the Division Bench's decision. The Supreme Court examined the case in detail, particularly focusing on whether KAU had adhered to the procedural requirements for disciplinary actions as prescribed by the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960.

The Court highlighted that Rule 15 of these rules mandates that before initiating a formal disciplinary inquiry, the disciplinary authority must record its satisfaction that there is a prima facie case against the employee. This procedural safeguard ensures that employees are not subjected to unwarranted disciplinary actions without a valid preliminary assessment. In Murali's case, the Supreme Court found that KAU had failed to demonstrate that such a satisfaction had been recorded prior to the inquiry. This procedural lapse was crucial in the Court’s decision to uphold the Division Bench's ruling.

Key Observations:

1. Adherence to Procedure: The Supreme Court emphasized that strict adherence to procedural norms is crucial in disciplinary proceedings. The absence of a recorded prima facie satisfaction before initiating the inquiry rendered the disciplinary action invalid.

2. Genuine Intentions: The Court acknowledged Murali's efforts to return to duty under extraordinary circumstances, including health issues and travel restrictions due to the pandemic. His bona fides were supported by e-mails and medical documentation.

3. Discretionary Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court noted that while it had discretionary powers under Article 136 of the Constitution, it did not find sufficient grounds to intervene in the Division Bench’s decision, given the procedural irregularities and the circumstances surrounding Murali's case.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court's dismissal of KAU's SLP reinforces the necessity for following established procedures in disciplinary matters. It also serves as a reminder of the courts' willingness to uphold fair practices and consider exceptional circumstances affecting employees. For KAU, the focus now shifts to complying with the High Court's directions on pensionary benefits and ensuring adherence to procedural requirements in future disciplinary actions.

  Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850