Calicut University Syndicate cannot challenge Chancellor's order: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court has held that the Syndicate of the University of Calicut cannot challenge an appellate order passed by the University Chancellor in disciplinary proceedings. Justice Ziyad Rahman A A observed that under the Calicut University Act, the Chancellor occupies a superior position in the University hierarchy and acts as the appellate authority over decisions taken by the Syndicate.

The court said that one component of the University cannot challenge the decision of another superior component unless such a power is specifically provided under law. Allowing such challenges, the court said, would go against the institutional hierarchy and discipline envisaged under the Act and Statutes governing the University.

The court made the observations while dismissing two writ petitions filed by Syndicate members of the University of Calicut challenging an order of the Chancellor that had set aside disciplinary action against an Instrumentation Engineer of the University.

The disciplinary proceedings related to alleged irregularities in a tender process for installing Local Area Network (LAN) systems in the University. According to the petitioners, mistakes committed by the engineer while 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 report by the Finance Inspection Department pointing to serious irregularities, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the employee.

A three-member Syndicate sub-committee conducted an enquiry and found the charges proved. Based on the findings, the Syndicate ordered the employee’s reversion to the post of Junior Engineer for five years, directed recovery of ₹27.42 lakh from him and treated his suspension period as leave without pay.

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

After considering the matter, the Chancellor stayed the recovery proceedings and later set aside the punishment order. The Chancellor also directed the reinstatement of the employee with all consequential benefits, treating him as having continued uninterrupted in the post of Instrumentation Engineer.

The Chancellor’s decision was subsequently challenged before the High Court by Syndicate members.

The court examined Section 3 of the Calicut University Act, 1975, which states that all authorities and functionaries of the University, including the Chancellor and Syndicate, form part of a single body corporate known as the University of Calicut.

It also referred to Statute 64 of the Calicut University First Statute, 1977, which requires the authority passing the original order to implement the decision of the appellate authority. The court held that the Syndicate was bound to implement the Chancellor’s order.

Relying on earlier decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Court, the court further observed that quasi-judicial authorities like the Syndicate cannot ordinarily challenge appellate orders passed by superior authorities.

The court held that the Syndicate members lacked locus standi to challenge the Chancellor’s decision and dismissed the petitions. However, it clarified that the dismissal of the petitions would not affect the ongoing vigilance investigations into the alleged financial irregularities. The court said authorities should continue efforts to identify those responsible and recover any losses caused to the University.

Advocate T B Hood appeared for the petitioners. Senior counsel P Sreekumar, assisted by advocate S Prasanth, appeared for the Chancellor. Senior counsel George Poonthottam, along with advocate A L Navaneeth Krishnan, appeared for the employee. Advocate P C Sasidharan appeared for the University, Advocate M A Vaheeda Babu represented the Vice Chancellor, and Government Pleader K G Sarojini appeared for the State.
(With Bar&Bench inputs)