The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed disciplinary action instituted by the UDF-led State government against a senior IAS officer for publishing an article lamenting the opposition to the then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi visiting the Sivagiri Madhom in 2013.
A Bench led by Justice J. Chelameswar gave immediate relief to B. Ashok, who was facing disciplinary action for having “grossly violated all sense of decency and propriety” by publishing the article titled What if Modi Comes to Sivagiri? in the Kerala Kaumudi daily on April 24, 2013. He was then the Vice Chancellor of the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Wayanad.
In the English translation of his article placed before the Supreme Court, the author questions, “What is really wrong about BJP leader, Parliamentary Board member and Gujarat CM Narendra Modi visiting Sivagiri?”
Mr. Ashok, who was co-panellist in a seminar Mr. Modi was to address at Sivagiri, argued in his article that “it is indeed true that 2002 riots in Gujarat were avoidable and the government there did not effectively prevent the killing of innocents.
Gujarat riots
Many observers do believe that Modi did fail to protect minorities then. But such “genocidal” riots did follow the murder of Indira Gandhi in 1984 in New Delhi... If we hold that Modi must not be welcomed or invited, we must keep in mind that the Sivagiri Madhom has not held it against Rajiv, Sonia or Prime Ministers that rioting happened during their tenure.”
The government had set up an inquiry panel, which reported in November 2014 that Mr. Ashok had violated conditions of sanction accorded to him by the Chancellor to publish literary and technical works. The report also concluded that he had violated the All lndia Service (Conduct) Rules and recommended action under Section 153-A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, etc) of the Indian Penal Code.
HC decision
The Kerala High Court in August 2015 upheld the State’s jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Ashok on the ground that his appointment as Vice Chancellor was on deputation from the State government.
Challenging the High Court's decision, Mr. Ashok, through senior advocate K.V. Vishwanathan, contended that the disciplinary action was not only in contravention of the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Act of 2010, but it also diluted the university’s autonomy. The Supreme Court prima facie agreed with this contention and admitted the petition.
He contended that only the Chancellor had the authority to initiate disciplinary action against a Vice Chancellor, and the State government had no role.
