IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2008 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 35851 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR.P.P.MOHAMMED, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.EASKUTTY, REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT B1 QUARTERS, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM SMT.K.P.AMBIKA SRI.THOMSTINE K.AUGUSTINE SRI.C.N.GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, THENHIPPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SYNDICATE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY SC SRI. P.C. SASIDHARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.35851/2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of December, 2008. JUDGMENT The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P9, a resolution of the Syndicate of the respondent University placing the petitioner under suspension. There is a further prayer to reinstate the petitioner in service. 2. When this writ petition came up for admission on 4.12.2008, it was adjourned by 10 days with a direction to the Standing Counsel for the University to obtain instructions in the matter. Today, though initially on hearing the counsel for both sides, I had directed the Counsel for the University to file a statement, counsel for the petitioner insisted that the matter should be disposed of today itself as otherwise, to quote him “there is no purpose in filing this writ petition”. In view of his instance, I had to hear and decide the case on the materials available and considering the rival submissions made by both sides. WP(c).No.35851/08 2 3. The prayer for quashing Ext.P9, the order placing the petitioner under suspension, is made based on Ext.P10 judgment. Ext.P10 is the judgment rendered by this court in WP(c).No.22831/2007 which was filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P9 order. That writ petition was disposed of with a direction to complete the enquiry within 3 months. Paragraph 4 of the judgment, being relevant, is extracted below for reference. “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 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.”(emphasis supplied) WP(c).No.35851/08 3 4. It is stated that, in pursuance to Ext.P10 judgment, the petitioner submitted Ext.P11 representation requesting the enquiry officer to complete the enquiry within the 3 months period specified in Ext.P10. According to the petitioner, the University protracted the proceedings and the enquiry remains incomplete, although the 3 months period specified in Ext.P10 has already expired. Petitioner submits that the time fixed in Ext.P10 judgment expired on 30.11.2008 and thereupon he requested for reinstatement and that the same was not even considered. It is in that background the writ petition was filed with the prayers mentioned above. 5. As already noticed, according the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was the University which protracted the proceedings. It is stated that even for chief examination of PW3, it took 8 sittings spanning over a period of more than a month. It is stated that this is the attitude adopted by the University and since the delay occurred is for reasons attributable to the University, he is justified in seeking reinstatement as ordered in Ext.P10 WP(c).No.35851/08 4 judgment. 6. From the operative portion of the judgment itself, it is evident that the petitioner will be justified in demanding reinstatement only if the enquiry is not over not for the fault of the petitioner and the question is whether the petitioner has succeeded in establishing this fact. 7. The standing counsel for the University refers to me the proceedings of the enquiry produced as Ext.P12 particularly the proceedings of 25.11.2008, 26.11.2008 and 29.11.2008. According to him, it was because of the attitude adopted by the petitioner that the delay has occurred. It is also stated that the Enquiry Officer has made every effort to complete the enquiry within the time limit and that the petitioner has engaged a practicing lawyer who is not available during working hours. According to him, for cross-examination of PW3 itself, he has taken 1 month and 10 days and the non-availability of defence counsel has also contributed to the delay. It is also pointed out that the petitioner now filed a list of 14 WP(c).No.35851/08 5 witnesses and he has also applied for recalling PW3 whose examination has already been completed. It is also pointed out that the enquiry is now scheduled to be conducted on a day to day basis from 22nd December, 2008 onwards. 8. As stated above, petitioner can seek relief only if he succeeds in establishing that it was only due to the fault of the University or the Enquiry Officer that the enquiry has not been completed. Ext.P12 is the proceedings of the Enquiry Officer. A perusal of Ext.P12 shows that on various occasions enquiry had to be deferred at the instance of the petitioner or his lawyer, whose non availability also has been mentioned in Ext.P12. If that is the position, the petitioner who has taken almost 6 weeks to cross-examine PW3 and has now applied for his recalling and has submitted a list of 14 witnesses, cannot say that University or the Enquiry Officer alone are to be blamed for not completing the enquiry. 9. From the aforesaid facts I am not in a position to conclude that it was only on account of the fault of the University or the Enquiry Officer that the enquiry remains incomplete. WP(c).No.35851/08 6 Added to this is the submission made by the Standing Counsel for the University that the request for reinstatement stated to have been filed by the petitioner is not even received by them. For the above reasons the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and I do so. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/