The Kerala High Court set aside the dismissal of a former Head of Department of Malabar Cancer Centre, holding that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can be invoked where the punishment imposed appears disproportionate to the charges, despite availability of an appellate remedy.
Kerala High Court Allows Writ Challenge Despite Appeal Remedy
The Kerala High Court has held that an appellate remedy does not always bar a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon gave the ruling while hearing a petition filed by Sudeep K.T., former Head of the Department of Engineering and Maintenance at Malabar Cancer Centre.
The petitioner challenged his dismissal from service. He argued that the punishment was disproportionate to the charges.
The case is titled Sudeep K.T. v. Malabar Cancer Centre and Anr., WP(C) No. 30601 of 2023, reported as 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 232.
Disciplinary Action Against Former HOD
The Malabar Cancer Centre first issued a show cause notice to the petitioner. He filed a reply to the notice.
Thereafter, the Centre handed over the department to the senior-most supervisor.
Later, the Centre served a memo of charges on the petitioner. He denied all allegations. The Centre then conducted a domestic enquiry and prepared an enquiry report.
Meanwhile, the authorities placed the petitioner under suspension for three months.
POSH Complaint Report Set Aside In Appeal
A sexual harassment complaint was also filed against the petitioner under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013.
The Internal Complaints Committee submitted its report. However, the appellate authority later set aside that report.
The appellate authority found that the enquiry had violated the principles of natural justice.
Despite this, the Centre later dismissed the petitioner from service.
Petitioner Challenges Dismissal Before High Court
The petitioner moved the High Court under Article 226.
He challenged the show cause notice, suspension order, order removing him from charge of the department, enquiry report, and dismissal order.
The respondents opposed the petition. They argued that the petitioner had an appellate remedy under Rule 81 of the Malabar Cancer Centre Society Service Rules, 2008.
According to them, the petitioner should have filed an appeal instead of approaching the High Court.
Court Says Disproportionate Penalty Can Be Tested In Writ Jurisdiction
The High Court rejected the maintainability objection.
It held that the Court could examine the matter under Article 226 when the punishment appeared disproportionate.
The Court relied on Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank v. Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank Employees Assn. and Another [(2007) 4 SCC 669].
Court Finds Charges Vague
The Court found that the order removing the petitioner from charge of the department contained vague allegations.
The order stated that the department was not functioning as expected. It also referred to delay in several projects.
However, the Court noted that the notice and charge memo did not give clear particulars. They also failed to explain how the petitioner alone caused the alleged delay.
The main allegation related to delay in execution of the KIIFB Project.
Reference To POSH Complaint Found Unjustified
The High Court also objected to the reference to the POSH complaint in the dismissal order.
It noted that the appellate authority had already set aside the Internal Complaints Committee report.
The appellate authority had done so because the enquiry violated natural justice.
Therefore, the Court found no justification for relying on the POSH complaint while dismissing the petitioner.
Court Says Maximum Punishment Ignored Proportionality
The Court held that the Centre imposed the maximum punishment without considering proportionality.
It noted that the main allegation concerned a delay of 15 months in project execution.
The Court also found that the charge memo lacked specific allegations.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the dismissal order.
It directed the Director of Malabar Cancer Centre to reconsider the punishment. The Court also directed the Director to reconsider the petitioner’s claim for subsistence allowance.
Counsel Appearances
For the Petitioner: Senior Advocate George Poonthottam, with Kavya Varma, Nisha George, A.L. Navaneeth Krishnan, and Ann Maria Francis.
For the Respondents: Senior Advocate P. Sreekumar, with P.A. Helen.
