VIJAYAKUMARAN C.P.V v. CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA INSC 92

Name of Case:

Facts:

In June 2017, the Central University of Kerala appointed Dr. Vijayakumaran as an Associate Professor in the Hindi Department on a probationary basis for a period of 12 months. Students filed complaints alleging sexual harassment against him in July 2017. The university formed an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) under the UGC regulations and the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013. The ICC conducted an investigation and presented a report determining that the complaints were not frivolous, resulting in a proposal for action against the appellant. According to said report and his unsatisfactory academic performance, the Executive Council terminated his services on 30-11-2017 while he was still on probation. Dr. Vijayakumaran disputed the termination order, arguing that it was stigmatic rather than a termination simpliciter. The Single Judge of the Kerala High Court dismissed his writ petition and determined the termination as non-punitive. The Division Bench upheld the said decision. The appellant presented the case before the Supreme Court.

Issue:

Was the termination order passed by the Central University of Kerala a case of simpliciter or ex-facie stigmatic termination? Was the termination held to conform to procedural fairness and service rules?

Holding:

The termination was ex-facie stigmatic. The termination was procedurally wrong, not preceded by a regular inquiry which was called for under the service rules.

Rationale:

The Supreme Court noted that the termination order was explicit in referring to the ICC report and allegations of sexual misconduct. References of this nature were imbibed into the facts themselves and attached stigma to the dismissal of the appellant to the detriment of his reputation and future prospects. The findings of the ICC and the decision of the Executive Council became the basis for the termination order, thus rendering it punitive. Termination under such circumstances was required to be supported by a proper inquiry so that the appellant would have a reasonable chance to vindicate himself. The Court also held that mere reliance on probationary status does not excuse the university from procedural fairness, where allegations involve misconduct of a serious nature.

The Supreme Court set aside the termination order and the judgments of the Kerala High Court. The appellant was reinstated but without an immediate award of back wages or benefits. The university was granted liberty to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings, including suspension, in accordance with service rules and the law. The appeal was partly allowed, no costs awarded.