Dr. K. Sajan vs The Cochin University Of Science ...

Kerala High Court

Dr. K. Sajan vs The Cochin University Of Science ...

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939

WP(C).No. 37616 OF 2017 (B)

----------------------------

PETITIONER(S):
-------------

1.DR. K. SAJAN
AGED 59, S/O.LATE K.V. KURIAN,
HOUSE NO.122, KARYAKULAM, MATHER NAGAR,
CHNGAPUZHA NAGAR PO, KOCHI 682033

2. DR.P.AJAYAKUMAR
AGED 43, S/O.LATE K.PRABHAKARAN,
QUARTERS TYPE II A,
UNIT NO. 20, CUSAT STAFF QUARTERS,
COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O, SOUTH KALAMASSERY,
ERNAKULAM 682022.

3.DR. NISHA .N.R

AGED 44, D/O.LATE N. RAVINDRAN,
FLAT NO. 1008, OCEANUS MAPLE,
VAYANASALA JUNCTION, VATTEKUNNAM,
B.P.MARAKKAR ROAD, EDAPPALLY TOLL, KOCHI 682024

BY ADVS.SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
SRI.R.GITHESH
SRI.P.PRIJITH
SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA

RESPONDENT(S):
--------------

1.THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

COCHIN UNIVERISTY P.O, SOUTH KALAMASSERY,
ERNAKULAM-682022,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/163339841/ 1

 Dr. K. Sajan vs The Cochin University Of Science ...

2.THE VICE-CHANCELLOR
THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
COCHIN UNIVERISTY P.O, SOUTH KALAMASSERY,
ERNAKULAM, 682022,
...2..

:2:

WP(C).No. 37616 OF 2017 (B)

----------------------------

3. THE REGISTRAR
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
COCHIN UNIVERISTY PO, SOUTH KALAMASSERY,
ERNAKULAM, 682022,

4.DR.P.G. SANKARAN,
PRO-VICE CHANCELLOR,
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O, SOUTH KALAMASSERY,
ERNAKULAM-682022.

5.DR.POORNIMA NARAYAN.R
MEMBER, SYNDICATE,
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
RANJINI, POZHOTH LANE,
KALOOR-KADAVANTHARA ROAD, KOCHI 682017

6.DR. A.N.BALACHAND
DEAN, FACULTY OF MARINE SCIENCES,
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
SCHOOL OF MARINE SCIENCES, FINE ARTS AVENUE,
ERNAKULAM 682016

7.MS.SANGEETH SUNDARESAN
3RD SEMESTER, M.SC. MARINE GEOPHYSICS,
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
DEPARTMENT OF MARINE GEOLOGY & GEOPHYSICS,
SCHOOL OF MARINE SCIENCES, FINE ARTS AVENUE,
ERNAKULAM-682016.

R1 -R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI, SC,

COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
R4-R6 BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
R7 BY ADVS. SRI.T.A.SHAJI (SR.)
SRI.S.ABHILASH VISHNU
KUM.NAIR ANUJA GOPALAN
SRI.ATHUL SHAJI

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD

ON 15-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/163339841/ 2

 Dr. K. Sajan vs The Cochin University Of Science ...

FOLLOWING:

:3:

WP(C).No. 37616 OF 2017 (B)

----------------------------

APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF ABSTRACT OF INTEGRATED

GEOPHYSICAL STUDY OF SAGARKANYA SEAMOUNT

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF EMAIL OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED

29.09.2017 ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF EMAIL OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT AND

THE REPLY OF DR.JOHN KURIAN DATED 29.09.2017

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF EMAIL OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED

01.10.2017

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF TRAIL EMAILS OF THE 7TH

RESPONDENT DATED 29.09.2017 AND THE EMAILS OF
SHRI. MAHESH NARAYANAN, PROJECT SCIENTIST
NCAOR DATED 29.09.2017 AND 30.09.2017

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF EMAILS DATED 04.10.2017 SENT BY

THE 7TH RESPONDENT AND DR.JOHN KURIAN

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 05.10.2017 SEND BY

THE 7TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. AC.A3/DC/99 DATED

10.03.2000 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE

DEPARTMENTAL COUNCIL DATED 03.10.2017

EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF MEMO DATED 11.10.2017 ISSUED BY

THE DEPARTMENT COUNCIL TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 11.10.2017 SUBMITTED

BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HEAD OF THE
DEPARTMENT.

EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE

DEPARTMENT COUNCIL DATED 13.10.2017

EXHIBIT P13: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 14.10.2017 ISSUED BY

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/163339841/ 3

 Dr. K. Sajan vs The Cochin University Of Science ...

THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS

..4..

:4:

WP(C).No. 37616 OF 2017 (B)

----------------------------

EXHIBIT P14: TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE

DEPARTMENT COUNCIL DATED 17.10.2017

EXHIBIT P15: TRUE COPY OF COVERING LETTER DATED 19.10.2017

OF THE 1ST PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P16: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 30.10.2017 ISSUED BY

THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS

EXHIBIT P17: TRUE COPY OF LETTER 30.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE

1ST PETITIONER TO THE PRO VICE CHANCELLOR,
CUSAT

EXHIBIT P18: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 05.05.2014 ISSUED BY

THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
UNIVERSITY

EXHIBIT P19: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 10.11.2017 OF THE

1ST PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE 7TH RESPONDENT'S
APPLICATION DATED 09.11.2017

EXHIBIT P20: TRUE COPY OF SECTION OFFICER'S REPORT DATED

15.11.2017 ON THE CONDUCT OF THE 7TH
RESPONDENT ON 10.11.2017

EXHIBIT P21: TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 13.11.2017 SUBMITTED

BY THE ENQUIRY COMMITTEE

EXHIBIT P22: TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED

17.11.2017

EXHIBIT P23: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. AC.A3/DISCIPLINARY

ACTION/2014-1 DATED 23.09.2014 OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P24: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 10.08.2017 ISSUED BY

THE 1ST RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE NCAOR
REQUESTING TO ACCEPT STUDENTS FOR PROJECT WORK

EXHIBIT P25: TRUE COPY OF 1ST PETITIONER'S EMAIL DATED

20.11.2017 AND THE REPLY OF DR. JOHN KURIAN
DATED 20.11.2017

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/163339841/ 4

 Dr. K. Sajan vs The Cochin University Of Science ...

EXHIBIT P26: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.AD.D1/MG&GP/DISCIPLINARY

PROCEEDINGS/2017 DATED 05-12-2017 ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

..5..

:5:

WP(C).No. 37616 OF 2017 (B)

----------------------------

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
-----------------------

EXHIBIT R7(A): TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 21.09.2017 SENT

BY DR.JOHN KURIAN, NCAOR, GOA.

EXHIBIT R7(B): TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL INTIMATIONS 29.9.2017

AT 8.45A.M SENT BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT R7(C): TRUE COPIES OF THE COLLECTIVE E-MAILS RECEIVED

FROM THE 2ND PETITIONER AND THE REPLY
SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT REFERRED TO IN
EXT.P4.

EXHIBIT R7(D): THE COPIES OF THE E-MAIL DATED 4.10.2017 SENT

BY DR.JOHN KURIAN TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT AND
THE COPY OF THE E-MAIL SENT BY THE 7TH
RESPONDENT ON 4.10.2017 TOGETHER.

//TRUE COPY//

vgd PA TO JUDGE

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
===================
W.P.(C).No.37616 of 2017
====================
Dated this the 15th day of December, 2017

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P22 order of suspension issued to the petitioners 1 to 3.
The 1st petitioner is the Professor & Head of the Department of Marine Geology & Geophysics and
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/163339841/ 5
 Dr. K. Sajan vs The Cochin University Of Science ...

the Director of School of Marine Sciences at the 1st respondent university. The 2nd and 3rd
petitioners are the Assistant Professors in the same department. It is submitted that the 7th
respondent is a student of M.Sc. Marine Geophysics in the university. The contention is that the
students of the 1st respondent university were required to participate in `Protolith 2017' conducted
by the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay. It is submitted that the 7th respondent had decided
to use her internship project for the purpose of participation in the competition. It is stated that the
7th respondent had sent an abstract of her work without obtaining the permission from the National
Centre for Antarctic and Ocean Research(NCAOR) or from W.P.(C).No.37616 of 2017 Dr.John
Kurian, Scientist who had guided in her internship. It is stated that pursuant to the communications
between the petitioner and Shri.John Kurian as well as Shri.Mahesh Narayanan, one of her
co-authors, the 2nd petitioner had been informed that the attempt by the 7th respondent to use data
from the NCAOR for her poster presentation was without the permission of the said institution and
was unethical and erroneous. It is stated that the 1st petitioner had sought explanation from the 7th
respondent and a meeting of the Departmental Council was convened on 13.10.2017. It is stated that
the 7th respondent had been required to explain her conduct and finally the departmental council
decided that the 7th respondent should be counselled by Dr.Ravishankar.M, Associate Professor,
Department of Marine Geology & Geophysics. The council recorded her statement in writing as well.
It is submitted that the father of the 7th respondent had submitted a complaint before the university
contending that the petitioners had harassed the 7th respondent at the departmental council
meeting held on 13.10.2017 and that had led the student W.P.(C).No.37616 of 2017 having to be
taken back home to Delhi urgently and also to seek medical treatment. On these allegations, a
preliminary enquiry was conducted against the petitioners by a committee consisting of three staff
members and Ext.P21 report was submitted on 13.11.2017. The university syndicate was convened
and had accepted the report submitted by the Enquiry Committee and the syndicate resolved to
suspend the petitioners subject to a detailed enquiry by a woman judicial officer. Ext.P22 is the
order dated 17.11.2017 which is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners
were only attempting to maintain the discipline in the department and that there are absolutely no
allegations as against the 3rd petitioner and that is in Ext.P21 or in Ext.P22 and that there is no
reason whatsoever to place her under suspension. It is further submitted that the 1st petitioner, who
is the head of the department, is due to retire from service at the end of the academic year after a
long stint of service in the university. It is W.P.(C).No.37616 of 2017 contended that as against the
2nd petitioner also, there were no allegations which necessitated the placing of the 2nd petitioner
under suspension. It is contended that it is not in dispute that the 7th respondent had attempted to
use the data which was made available to her during an internship with the NCAOR for a poster
presentation in a competition without due consent. It is stated that the impropriety of such an action
had only been brought to the notice of the 7th respondent in the departmental council meeting held
on 13.10.2017.

3. It is also contended that the student had been made aware by Dr.John Kurian that the data could
not be used without the consent, had voluntarily withdrawn the material from the competition and
that the disciplinary proceedings and the suspension ordered as against the petitioners are
absolutely unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/163339841/ 6

 Dr. K. Sajan vs The Cochin University Of Science ...

4. Counter affidavits had been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 as well as the 7th respondent.
I do not propose to go into the factual aspects of the matter at present, in view of the directions I
intend to issue. On considering the W.P.(C).No.37616 of 2017 contentions advanced, I am of the
opinion that the question whether an employee is to be placed under suspension, pending
disciplinary proceedings or not is essentially a matter for the appointing authority or the
disciplinary authority to consider. Though it is contended by the learned senior counsel appearing
for the petitioners that in view of the fact that the attempt of the 1st petitioner was only to maintain
the discipline in the institution in the best interest of the institution and that a suspension was
completely unwarranted in this case, I am of the opinion that it is an aspect which should gain the
attention of the syndicate which passed Ext.P22 order. This is not a case with where there is no
material whatsoever before the syndicate to pass an order directing the initiation of disciplinary
proceedings as against the petitioners. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, whether
it is necessary to keep the petitioners under suspension, especially, in view of the fact that there are
no specific findings recorded in Ext.P21 as against the 3rd petitioner and also taking note of the fact
that the 1st petitioner is due to retire from service at the end of this W.P.(C).No.37616 of 2017
academic year is a matter which has to be looked into. It is for the respondent university to consider
whether there is any real necessity to keep the petitioners under suspension any further. With
regard to the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the university that the
disciplinary proceedings had already been ordered by Ext.P22 and that such proceedings can be
completed within a reasonable time, I am of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of this
case, the university should take steps to see that the disciplinary proceedings ordered against the
petitioners have to be initiated and concluded at the earliest.

5. In the above view of the matter, there will be a direction to the university to consider the request,
if any, to be made by the affected parties for revocation of the suspension. If such requests are made
within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same shall be
considered and reasoned orders shall be passed thereon within a period of six weeks thereafter. In
case, the university intends to conduct any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners, the
W.P.(C).No.37616 of 2017 charge sheet shall be framed and communicated to the petitioners
without further delay. The disciplinary proceedings shall be carried on and completed before
30.04.2018.

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE vgd

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/163339841/ 7