UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


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.

Latest Legal News