University Syndicate cannot sue the Chancellor as both are parts of the same legal body: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently held that the Calicut University's Syndicate is not entitled to challenge an appellate order passed by the University's Chancellor in disciplinary proceedings [MB Fasal v State of Kerala & ors and connected case].

Justice Ziyad Rahman AA observed that under the Calicut University Act, the Chancellor occupies a superior position in the hierarchy of the University and acted as the appellate authority over decisions taken by the Syndicate.

The Court added that one component of the University cannot challenge the decision of another superior component unless expressly authorised by law.

The Court said that allowing such challenges would defeat the very concept of the University functioning as a single body corporate and disrupt the institutional discipline.

"Therefore, raising a challenge against such an appellate order is not something envisaged under the provisions of the Act and Statutes framed thereunder. Moreover, being an adjudicating authority, the Syndicate is not expected to challenge the order passed by the superior authority (Chancellor) in exercise of the statutory powers conferred upon such superior authority being the appellate authority of the Syndicate. Such a challenge or an attempt to challenge would be against the institutional hierarchy and the discipline, which are bound to be maintained in full adherence to the various provisions of the Act and the Statutes framed thereunder," the Court said.

The Court was dealing with two writ petitions filed by Syndicate members of the University of Calicut. They had challenged an order of the University Chancellor setting aside disciplinary action taken against an Instrumentation Engineer of the university.

The disciplinary proceedings arose from alleged regularities in a tender process for installation of Local Area Network (LAN) systems in the university.

According to the petitioners, errors by the engineer in approving and verifying tender specifications submitted by a bidder had caused a loss of ₹27.42 lakh to the university.

Following vigilance enquiries and a Finance Inspection Department report pointing to serious irregularities, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the employee.

A three member Syndicate Sub Committee conducted an enquiry and found that charges levelled against the employee were proven. Thereafter, the Syndicate ordered the employee's reversion to the post of Junior Engineer for 5 years and directed the recovery of ₹27.42 lakhs from him. The penalty order also treated his suspension period as leave without pay.

The employee challenged the punishment before the Chancellor under the Calicut University First Statute, 1977 (1977 Statute).

After hearing the matter, the Chancellor stayed the recovery proceedings and eventually set aside the punishment order altogether. The Chancellor proceeded to direct the reinstatement of the employee with all consequential benefits as though he had continued uninterrupted in the post of Instrumentation Engineer.

Subsequently, the Chancellor's order was challenged before the High Court by Syndicate members.

The Court examined Section 3 of the Calicut University Act, 1975, which provides that the various authorities and functionaries of the University, including the Chancellor and the Syndicate were part of a single body corporate known as the University of Calicut.

Further, it pointed at Statute 64 of the 1977 Statute, which specifically obligated the authority passing the original order to implement an appellate authority's decision. The Court concluded that the Syndicate was obligated to implement the Chancellor's order.

The Court also relied on several decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Court to clarify that quasi-judicial authorities like the Syndicate cannot ordinarily challenge appellate decisions.

The Court, therefore, dismissed the petitions on the ground that the Syndicate members did not have the locus standi (legal standing) to challenge the Chancellor's decision in such disciplinary matters.

It explained that courts cannot entertain such petitions unless there is an exceptional situation involving a grave miscarriage of justice.

The Court, however, clarified that the dismissal of the writ petitions would not prevent the ongoing vigilance investigations into alleged financial regularities. It observed that the authorities must continue efforts to identify those responsible for any wrongdoing and recover losses caused to the university.

Advocate TB Hood appeared for the petitioners in both the writ petitions.

Senior counsel P Sreekumar appeared for the Chancellor assisted by advocate S Prasanth.

Senior counsel George Poonthottam appeared for the employee along with advocate AL Navaneeth Krishnan.

Advocate PC Sasidharan appeared for the University.

Advocate MA Vaheeda Babu represented the Vice-Chancellor.

Government pleader KG Sarojini represented the state.

[Read Judgment]