Kerala High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Fmr Kasargod College Principal, Cites Extraneous One-Sided Inquiry & Indiscipline Of SFI Students

The Kerala High Court quashed the disciplinary proceedings initiated against Dr. Rema, the former Principal in charge of Government College, Kasargod against whom proceedings were initiated for allegedly misbehaving with students belonging to SFI Union.A disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the petitioner alleging that she spoke about the immoral conduct of girls, drug use amongst students and illegal activities of students belonging to SFI Union in an interview given to Marundana Malayali Channel. She received show cause notice from the Director of Collegiate Education alleging that her statements during the channel interview lowered the dignity and reputation of the college. The Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen observed the petitioner has not violated Government Servants' Conduct Rules because no allegations were made against the government nor about the relationship between government and people in the interview. The Court further stated that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner based on extraneous considerations and without conducting an independent inquiry against SFI students who barged into the Principal's room and wrongfully restrained her. It thus called the enquiry one-sided and held thus: “It is apparent that the Government acted on extraneous consideration rather than adopting a non-partisan approach. No action was initiated against the members of the SFI unit and no inquiry was conducted against them. Now it seems that those who wanted to bring discipline in the college have been disciplined. Instead of supporting the petitioner and initiating an investigation into her complaints against the students, the Government and Collegiate Education targeted her and portrayed her as a villain. ….On the face of disciplinary charges, we conclude that it is legally unsustainable. We also note that the decision to initiate disciplinary action was vitiated due to extraneous consideration. Thus, we struck down the memo of charges.”The issue arose when students protested against contaminated drinking water in the college and the petitioner was wrongfully restrained. During these protests, news was circulated by SFI students that the petitioner verbally abused them and subsequently, she was discharged from duties. The petitioner approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal challenging the order discharging her from the duties of the Principal and her transfer. The Tribunal did not interfere with her discharge and the petitioner retired on March 31, 2024. The Disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were pending before the Tribunal. The Court stated that it would not usually interfere with disciplinary proceedings, however, it affirmed its duty to protect the liberty of citizens if those proceedings were initiated with extraneous motives to oppress a public servant.The Court found that the charges alleged against the petitioner were based on the interview given to the Marunadan Malayali Channel. The Court found that if the petitioner has made allegations or spoken ill against students belonging to the SFI Union, they are the aggrieved parties and not the government. It found that the petitioner had not violated Rules 62 and 63 of Government Servants' Conduct Rules by giving the interview. It stated that she was only defending her actions against the false propaganda circulated against her on social media. Rule 62 pertains to the publication of documents and communications to the Press about Government affairs or about relation between the Government and the people. Rule 63 states that prior government consent is required for speaking to the Press relating to Rule 62. It thus held that Rules 62 and 63 were not applicable here since the petitioner made no allegations against the government. “The petitioner is a free citizen of this country. She cannot surrender her constitutional right of free speech and expression. The restriction is only in the manner as prescribed under law. Her constitutional right cannot be fettered beyond the restriction imposed by law. There are no restrictions placed on her under the relevant conduct rules regarding giving a Press interview or any matters not covered under Rule 62. One cannot be punished or penalised for exercising right of speech and expression. The petitioner has every right to defend her actions, and the interview she gave was merely a narration of indiscipline and immoral activities; whether true or not, it will not border misconduct ex-facie under the Government Servants' Conduct Rules“, stated the Court. Regarding the speech given by the petitioner, the Court stated that the petitioner is a free citizen with freedom of speech and expression. It stated that she might have a different outlook on life with a moral paternalist mindset, but it cannot be a reason to initiate disciplinary proceedings. The Court further held that it was unfortunate that no inquiry was conducted...

Kerala High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Fmr Kasargod College Principal, Cites Extraneous One-Sided Inquiry & Indiscipline Of SFI Students

Tellmy Jolly

Tags