Kerala Civil Services Rules| Recording Of Satisfaction Before Holding A Departmental Inquiry Mandatory: Supreme Court

The Court said that 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.

The Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition preferred by Kerala Agricultural University where it challenged the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala that quashed the order passed by the Vice Chancellor of the University terminating the services of the respondent.

The bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal perused Rule 15(2)(a) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 and observed, “the aforesaid rule in explicit terms provides for recording a prima facie satisfaction for holding a disciplinary inquiry against any delinquent employee...It is a cardinal principle of law that if a statute provides for doing a thing in a particular manner than it should be done in that fashion only and not otherwise. Therefore, recording of satisfaction before holding a departmental inquiry was mandatory."

Senior Advocate R. Basant appeared for the Appellant and Senior Advocate Gaurav Agrawal appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts-

The Respondent joined Kerala Agricultural University as an Assistant Professor and took a 20-year Leave Without Allowance (LWA) to work in the U.S. Upon the expiry of his leave, he failed to return to work due to health issues and the COVID-19 pandemic. Later when he returned to India he was not allowed to rejoin and was instead charged with unauthorised absence. A departmental inquiry found him guilty of violating LWA conditions and terminated him from services. His petition was dismissed as the Court found his reasons for not rejoining unsatisfactory. However, the Division Bench later overturned the decision, stating that the university did not follow proper disciplinary procedures.

The Court perused Section 15 of the said rules and observed, “It inter alia provides that before holding a departmental/regular disciplinary inquiry, the delinquent would be given a show cause notice as to why a departmental inquiry may not be held against him on the charges levelled and it is only after recording of the prima facie satisfaction that a departmental inquiry is necessary, the matter could be referred for holding a regular disciplinary inquiry.”

The Court noted that in the present case, no material at any stage has been brought on record to establish that any such satisfaction was recorded before appointing an inquiry committee and passing of the order of termination by the Vice Chancellor on the basis of the inquiry report.

The Court did not find it necessary to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Petition.