Higher Qualification No Ground for Dismissal: Kerala HC Sets Aside Disciplinary Proceedings Against Bank Employee for Possessing SSLC Qualification

123
0
Share:
Allegations absence Divorced Family Assert Bail File Limitations Knowledge Licensees father DNA Affidavit Evidence Bail 258 Airport Evidence Bail Property Properties Bail Power Land DNA Land CAT Labour Issuance medical drt Application Jurisdiction Public land Bail 138 GST Intelligence Disciplinary SBI bail Family evidence driving Trusteeship 148 Criminal Sexual Assault Case Murder Divorce Woman Pay Scale bail Publication Teachers investigation bail disciplinary Non-Bailable repayment education evidence Acquittal Bail bail

The High Court of Kerala, in a significant judgment, has quashed the disciplinary proceedings against a bank employee, T.D. Sreejakumari, who was dismissed from service for possessing higher educational qualifications than required for her post.

The court highlighted the critical issue of whether possessing higher educational qualifications can be a ground for dismissal from service. It addressed the principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings, especially the employee’s right to respond to an enquiry report before the disciplinary authority reaches a conclusion.

T.D. Sreejakumari, a Full-Time House Keeper cum Peon at Union Bank of India, faced dismissal for allegedly possessing SSLC qualification instead of the required 7th standard. The bank charged her with submitting a fraudulent certificate and making false statements. Sreejakumari challenged her dismissal, claiming a violation of natural justice and disproportionate disciplinary action.

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, presiding over the case, observed, “In some cases, higher qualification itself is a disqualification for getting appointment in certain posts.” The court found that the disciplinary proceedings against Sreejakumari were initiated without giving her a chance to respond to the enquiry report, a violation of natural justice principles established in the landmark judgment of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar.

The judgment stated, “This is illegal and against the principle laid down by the Apex Court in ECIL’s case (supra).” The court also noted the disproportionate nature of the disciplinary action and directed the respondents to re-evaluate the necessity and appropriateness of continuing the disciplinary proceedings.

The court quashed the disciplinary proceedings against Sreejakumari, directing the respondents to reconsider the proceedings in compliance with natural justice principles and specific circumstances of the case.

 Date of Decision: February 14, 2024

T.D. Sreejakumari vs Union Bank of India & Ors.

Download Judgment

Share: