Summary of the Judgement
Case Name: Kerala Agricultural University & Anr. vs T.P. Murali @ Murali Thavara Panen & Anr.
Date: September 4, 2024
Judges: Hon’ble Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Hon’ble Justice Pankaj Mithal
Advocates: Shri R. Basant (Senior Counsel for Petitioners), Shri Gaurav Agrawal (Senior Counsel for Respondents)
Acts and Sections Involved:
Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1960
Rule 24A and Clause 6 of Appendix XIIA, Kerala Service Rules
Introduction
This case, involving the Kerala Agricultural University and the respondent T.P. Murali, revolves around the legality of a termination decision made by the University following the respondent's failure to return to duty after availing an extended Leave Without Allowance (LWA). The core issue pertains to the procedural integrity of the disciplinary action and whether the respondent's absence post-leave constituted grounds for dismissal under the relevant service rules.
Background of the Case
The respondent, T.P. Murali, was employed as an Assistant Professor at the Kerala Agricultural University since March 1988. After 11 years of service, he availed himself of a long LWA for 20 years, which expired on September 4, 2019. The LWA, sanctioned under Rule 24A and Clause 6 of Appendix XIIA of the Kerala Service Rules, allowed Murali to take up employment abroad. He was employed in the Community College, Pennsylvania, USA, during this period.
Upon the expiry of his LWA, Murali failed to resume his duties, citing health issues and the COVID-19 pandemic as reasons. He communicated his intention to return but did not immediately rejoin. His attempts to return to India were delayed due to travel restrictions, and he was able to board a repatriation flight only in July 2020. However, upon his arrival, the University initiated disciplinary proceedings for his unauthorized absence from September 5, 2019 onwards.
The University's Vice Chancellor terminated Murali’s employment on July 30, 2021, following an inquiry that found him in violation of the conditions of his LWA. Murali subsequently challenged this decision in the High Court of Kerala, which quashed the termination order on the grounds of procedural impropriety but refused to reinstate him since he had reached the age of superannuation. Instead, the court directed that pensionary benefits be disbursed.
Procedural Issues in the Disciplinary Inquiry
One of the central legal questions in this case was whether the University followed the correct disciplinary procedures as prescribed under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1960. According to Rule 15 of these rules, the authority must establish a prima facie case and provide a show cause notice to the delinquent employee before initiating a formal disciplinary inquiry.
In this case, the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Kerala High Court found that the University had failed to adhere to this requirement. As per the judgement:
“A plain reading of Rule 15(2)(a) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960, which is applicable for imposing major penalties, specifically lays down that the disciplinary authority… must record its satisfaction that there is a prima facie case for taking action against the delinquent employee.”
The failure to record such satisfaction before appointing an inquiry committee was a significant flaw in the process, leading the Division Bench to quash the termination order.
Argument on Unauthorised Absence and the Response to COVID-19
The petitioner, Kerala Agricultural University, argued that Murali had remained on unauthorized absence post-September 2019, which was a clear violation of the terms of his LWA. They contended that the 20-year leave period could not be extended under any circumstances as per Rule 24A of the Kerala Service Rules, and the respondent’s failure to return immediately warranted termination.
The respondent, on the other hand, provided explanations rooted in health complications and the unprecedented challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Division Bench accepted these reasons as bona fide, particularly noting the medical evidence and travel restrictions that delayed his return to duty. The court opined:
“The bona fides of the respondent in this regard stand fortified by his e-mails and the medical papers on record.”
This recognition of Murali's health issues and travel restrictions reflects a sensitive judicial approach to the unique global context of the pandemic, which impacted employment relationships across sectors.
The Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its ruling delivered by Hon’ble Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Hon’ble Justice Pankaj Mithal, upheld the decision of the Division Bench, dismissing the University's Special Leave Petition. The court reinforced the principle of procedural propriety, reiterating the requirement for the University to follow the disciplinary procedures as laid down in the relevant service rules.
The court observed:
“It is a cardinal principle of law that if a statute provides for doing a thing in a particular manner, then it should be done in that fashion only and not otherwise.”
This finding underscores the importance of strict adherence to procedural rules in disciplinary matters, especially when the outcome affects an individual's employment rights. The University’s failure to comply with these requirements invalidated the termination decision.
Furthermore, the court was sympathetic to Murali’s predicament, acknowledging that the COVID-19 pandemic created exceptional circumstances that delayed his return to duty. The judgement further emphasized the discretionary nature of the court’s jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, which was not invoked in this case due to the lack of merit in the University’s petition.
Conclusion
The Kerala Agricultural University v. T.P. Murali case highlights critical issues related to employment law and the procedural safeguards required in disciplinary inquiries. The case demonstrates the court’s commitment to ensuring that employees are not penalised for procedural shortcomings on the part of their employers.
While the University's concerns regarding unauthorized absence were valid under the service rules, the respondent’s situation was complicated by the unforeseen impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The court’s decision reflects a balanced approach, ensuring that procedural justice was served while recognizing the unique challenges faced by employees during a global crisis.
The ruling serves as a reminder for public sector employers to strictly adhere to the procedural mandates laid down in service regulations before taking disciplinary action. It also provides guidance on the appropriate response to unforeseen circumstances like the pandemic that may hinder an employee’s ability to return to duty.
Comments