IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1932 CRP.No. 1101 of 2007() ---------------------------- A.NO..7/2006 of UNTY.APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,TVM. ................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT ----------------------------- M.V.JOSE, 'MANJILA', ARRA - A4, ASARIPARAMBU ROAD, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN : 682 024. BY ADVS. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.ANAND SRI.JOVY GEORGE VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------- 1. THE MANAGER, ST.ALBERT'S COLLEGE, POST BOX NO.3043, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682 018. 2. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. * ADDL. R4 IMPLEADED 4. THE PRINCIPAL, ST. ALBERTS COLLEGE, ERNAKULAM-682 018. * ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 06/04/2009 IN I.A.856/2009 IN CRP.No. 1101/2007. R1, R4 BY ADV. SRI.BABY ISSAC ILLICKAL THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CRP No.1101 of 2007-E ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated 19th November 2010 Order Thottathil.B.Radhakrishnan, J. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 63(9) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985, challenging the decision of the University Appellate Tribunal, dismissing an appeal filed by the revision petitioner challenging the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on him by the management of an aided recognised college. 2. The revision petitioner was a Grade-IV Librarian in the service of the college. He faced a disciplinary proceeding on the allegation that he did not obey the directions of the superiors, particularly the Principal and the Librarian and refused to issue books to off-campus students of the college. The fact of the matter remains that there is no documentary evidence of either CRP No.1101/07 2 the Principal or the Librarian having issued any written instruction regarding issuance of books to off-campus students, however that the delinquent essentially admits that there was an oral instruction governing the situation. The enquiry was completed by examining five witnesses and marking 14 documents on the side of the management and 8 on the side of the delinquent. 3. When the enquiry report was served on the delinquent, he admitted the guilt, tendered apology and sought lenience in the matter. Taking that into consideration, the management modified the proposal to dismiss him from service and accordingly awarded him the penalty of compulsory retirement with effect from 16.12.2005, the date on which he was placed under suspension. 4. With the passage of time, the revision petitioner is now 54 years of age. He is not entitled to the benefit of the U.G.C. scheme. He would, therefore, have to retire from service on attaining the age of 55 years on CRP No.1101/07 3 superannuation, had he continued in service. Taking the overall facts and circumstances into consideration and the fact that the revision petitioner is not attributed with any mis-demeanour touching his conduct or moral turpitude, we are of the view that the punishment imposed on the delinquent is grossly disproportionate to what he could have been made to suffer for the misconduct for which he had even tendered apology. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to take the view that the punishment of compulsory retirement be set aside, enabling the management to consider as to what punishment it would reasonably impose on the revision petitioner. However, taking into consideration the fact that the delinquent had admitted guilt, we do not deem it necessary to remit the matter, particularly when the delinquent has reached the age of 54 years. Ends of justice prompt us to think that complete justice would be done between the parties, if the order of compulsory retirement is treated as imposed w.e.f. today, however that the period until now from 16.12.2005, CRP No.1101/07 4 the date of his suspension, would be treated as period of suspension and the revision petitioner would not be eligible for any wages. He would be eligible only to draw subsistence allowance for the period from 16.12.2005 till today, 19.11.2010. We further clarify that the period from 16.12.2005 till today would be treated as qualifying service, only for the purpose of pension and other retirement benefits. The management will draw up necessary papers for disbursement of dues to the delinquent, including retiral, in terms of this judgment and forward the same to the concerned department of the Government at the earliest. The C.R.P. is ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE CRP No.1101/07 5 sta CRP No.1101/07 6