MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand 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.

Similar News