USAB rules senior Jaffna University lecturer's dismissal unlawful

The University Services Appeals Board (USAB) has ruled that the dismissal of a senior university lecturer from the University of Jaffna (UoJ) over examination malpractices was contrary to law.

While Prof. Sarvananthan has been deemed guilty of improper conduct in relation to official duties, the USAB has recommended the payment of back wages and allowances to him, subject to any pecuniary punishment that may be imposed.

The USAB has left it to the UoJ Council to decide whether such punishment should be imposed. Prof. Muttukrishan Sarvananthan was appointed as a Senior Lecturer (Grade I) to the Department of Economics in May 1.

He was dismissed in January 2021, after a preliminary inquiry and a formal inquiry, for releasing five out of eight questions in the subjects of development economics and gender economics prior to the examination.

Prof. Sarvananthan later admitted he had committed the offence but said it had been an error of judgment, not intentional and for no personal benefit. In written submissions, he called the episode “a blot on my academic career at the University of Jaffna.”

He maintained, however, that during the formal inquiry held in January 2021, there was a lack of due process and a violation of the rules of natural justice, such as being given only five days to prepare.

He contended the punishment meted out to him was disproportionate, mala fide and revengeful at the instigation of “certain interested parties” in the UoJ. The respondents countered they acted in good faith within the existing rules and regulations at all times relevant to the matter.

But the USAB also found multiple violations of due process in the conduct of the UoJ’s probe into the incident. For instance, a preliminary investigation committee was appointed by a Competent Authority--which the UoJ had at the time-without due recourse to the University Council.

The UoJ failed to satisfactorily establish before the USAB that the University Grants Commission’s Manual Procedure for Conduct of University Examinations dated September 1883 had, in fact, been adopted by the UoJ. However, Prof. Sarvananthan had been charged under this Code.

Consequently, the USAB said the allegations based on this document referred to in the charge sheet “could not have been validly framed and the said charges based on the aforesaid provisions have no force or avail in law.”

“A charge is a serious matter, proof of which will have legal consequences and it has to be based on a legally valid source,” the USAB said.

Even before the date of the charge sheet and the consideration of Prof. Sarvananthan’s show cause and answers, the University Council had decided a formal inquiry was needed and appointed an inquiry officer.

“In our view, this shows the Council wanted to have a formal inquiry even prior to the charge sheet and show/ cause answer being considered in terms of law,” the USAB said.

Further, the formal inquiry report was signed by both the inquiry officer and the prosecuting officer.

“We fail to see as to how this could be possible in that a prosecutor has no place or role to play in judging the suspect. If the prosecutor is the judge in an inquiry then all rules and regulations and cardinal rules of natural justice have been dispensed with,” the judgment said.

“It is a blatant violation of rules of natural justice for the inquiry officer to get together with the prosecuting officer and sign the inquiry report. This shows that the inquiry that was conducted, was held in a manner that is totally biased and one-sided,” it added.

The USAB finds multiple other issues with the manner in which the inquiry was conducted. For instance, the inquiry officer and prosecuting officer were aware of allegations against Prof. Sarvananthan that were not related to the formal inquiry.

“The partiality or the bias of the inquiry officer is further demonstrated by (1) the consideration of irrelevant material and the evidence that were not placed at the inquiry and (2) by NOT considering the position of the Appellant,” the USAB ruled.

“It is a blatant violation of rules of natural justice for the inquiry officer to get together with the prosecuting officer and sign the inquiry report. This shows that the inquiry that was conducted, was held in a manner that is totally biased and one-sided."