Kerala High Court quashes government’s show-cause notice to Ciza Thomas, former VC in-charge of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University

Kerala High Court quashes show-cause notice issued to Ciza Thomas, former Principal, Govt Engg College, Thiruvananthapuram for taking over additional charge of V-C of KTU without govt permission. Bench found govt's action selective & biased, an abuse of law. KAT failed to consider her challenge strictly in accordance with SC law. Govt's action pre-meditated to penalise her & punitive in nature.

A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on October 20 quashed the show-cause notice issued by the Kerala government to Ciza Thomas, former Principal, Government Engineering College, Thiruvananthapuram, for taking over the additional charge of Vice-Chancellor of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (KTU) without the permission of the government, on the instruction of Chancellor (Governor) Arif Mohammed Khan.

The Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen passed the verdict while allowing a petition filed by Dr. Thomas against the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT) order in the case.

In her petition, she had alleged that the action of the Kerala government was selective and biased and an abuse of the law. In fact, she was given the additional charge of the V-C while working as senior joint director, Technical Education. Though she had sought permission of the government through e-mail by sending an application through the Director of Technical Education, the government kept mum and did not issue any order or acted on her request till her retirement on March 31, 2023. Her application for prior sanction had been kept in cold storage till the date of her retirement. She said that her appointment as additional V-C was upheld by the Kerala High Court.

She pointed out that since she took over the additional charge of V-C, the government started to “harass” her. She was later removed from the post of senior joint director. However, the KAT directed the government to accommodate her in a suitable post in Thiruvananthapuram when she challenged the government action. It was close on the heels of the tribunal’s directive that she had been issued the show-cause notice.

She also pointed out that when she had challenged the show-case notice, the KAT had only directed the government to consider her explanation with an open mind and to provide an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. She had also been served with a memo of charge as a sequel to the show-cause notice. It was vague and does not even have a date. The charges against her were that she had not properly discharged her duties as the joint director of Technical Education and had delayed the finalisation of files.

She pointed out that the KAT had failed to consider her challenge strictly in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court. Had the tribunal considered her challenge against the show-cause notice, the government would not have obtained an opportunity to proceed against the petitioner even after her retirement. The government’s entire action is “pre-meditated to penalise the petitioner and is punitive in nature,” she argued.