In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has dismissed a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20817 of 2022 filed by Kerala Agricultural University and another party against T.P. Murali, reinforcing a key procedural mandate in disciplinary actions against government employees. The Court, led by Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Pankaj Mithal, upheld the Kerala High Court’s Division Bench decision, emphasizing that the procedure prescribed under the rules must be strictly followed in cases involving major penalties like termination of services.
Background of the Case:
The dispute began when T.P. Murali, an Assistant Professor at Kerala Agricultural University, was terminated from his position by the university’s Vice Chancellor on July 30, 2021. Murali had initially joined the university on March 24, 1988, but later took a long Leave Without Allowance (LWA) of 20 years, from September 5, 1999, to September 4, 2019, to work at a Community College in Pennsylvania, USA.
Upon the expiry of the LWA, Murali failed to resume his duties immediately, allegedly due to serious health issues and travel restrictions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite his expression of intent to rejoin duty via email, the university charged him with unauthorized absence from September 5, 2019, and initiated a formal departmental inquiry, eventually leading to his termination.
Murali challenged the termination order in the Kerala High Court, where a Single Judge initially upheld the university’s decision. However, on appeal, the Division Bench quashed the termination, citing procedural lapses in the disciplinary process but refused to reinstate Murali, given his retirement age.
Key Legal Issues:
1. Compliance with Procedural Rules:
The primary legal issue revolved around whether the Kerala Agricultural University followed the procedure prescribed under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1960, and the Kerala Service Rules, particularly Rule 15, which outlines the process for imposing major penalties, including termination of service.
2. Mandatory Recording of Prima Facie Satisfaction:
According to Rule 15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1960, before holding a regular disciplinary inquiry, the authority must record its satisfaction that there is a prima facie case for taking action against the delinquent employee.
3. Employee’s Rights under COVID-19 Restrictions:
Another critical issue was whether Murali’s failure to resume duties could be justified under unprecedented circumstances, including his health condition and international travel restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Supreme Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court examined the Division Bench’s judgment, which found that Kerala Agricultural University had not adhered to the procedural requirements for conducting a disciplinary inquiry. The Court noted that no material evidence was presented to establish that any satisfaction was recorded before initiating the inquiry and terminating Murali’s services.
In affirming the High Court’s ruling, the Supreme Court underscored 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.” The Court reiterated that recording satisfaction before conducting a departmental inquiry is a mandatory procedural requirement.
Quoting the Court’s Observations:
“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. Therefore, recording of satisfaction before holding a departmental inquiry was mandatory,” the Court stated.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, affirming that procedural propriety is fundamental in disciplinary actions involving government employees.
