IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 8659 of 2008(E)
1. K. BALAN, HEADMASTER (UNDER SUSPENSION)
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
5. SMT. P.K.NALINI, MANAGER
6. SRI. K.PREMAN
For Petitioner :SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN (SR.)
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :24/07/2009
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J
...............................................
W.P(C) No. 8659 of 2008
.................................................
Dated this the 24th day of July, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was the headmaster of the Mooriyad Central
U.P. School in Kannur District, which is an aided school. He is
aggrieved by the punishment imposed on him of reduction to the
lower grade of UPSA in disciplinary proceedings initiated by the
4th respondent Assistant Educational Officer, Koothuparamba.
On certain allegations of misconduct, by Ext.P7 memo of
charges, the 4th respondent directed the petitioner to show cause
why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against the
petitioner for the allegations of misconduct enumerated therein.
The petitioner filed Ext.P8 detailed reply to the charge sheet.
Thereafter, by Ext.P9, the 4th respondent directed the manager
to suspend the petitioner and to continue disciplinary
proceedings. By Ext.P10, the Manager complied with the
directions issued by the AEO and suspended the petitioner for a
period of 15 days. Subsequently the Assistant Educational
Officer himself directed extension of period of suspension by one
W.P(C) No. 8659 of 2008 -2-
month. By Ext.P14, the AEO directed the Manager to extend the
period of suspension of the petitioner, until further orders.
Pursuant thereto, by Ext.P15, the Manager continued the
suspension until further orders. The petitioner approached this
court by filing W.P(C) No. 1668/2008 in which I directed the
Deputy Director of Education to pass orders on the
representation filed by the petitioner. Pursuant to the same, by
Ext.P18, the Assistant Educational Officer was directed to
complete the disciplinary proceedings within seven days.
Subsequently, by Ext.P23, the Manager imposed on the
petitioner the punishment of reversion to the post of UPSA.
Accordingly he was reinsisted with effect from 13.3.2008. The
petitioner is challenging Exts.P7, P9, P10, P12, P15, P18 and
P23.
2. According to the petitioner, the Assistant Educational
Officer being personally interested in the matter with an ulterior
motive of getting a relation of his appointed in the petitioners
place, has initiated the disciplinary proceedings, that too without
complying with the provisions of Section 12A of the Kerala
Education Act. In support of this contention, the petitioner has
W.P(C) No. 8659 of 2008 -3-
produced Ext.P20 letter issued by the Manager to the petitioner
stating that the Manager has absolutely no complaint against any
action of the petitioner and that he was simply following the
directions issued by the AEO. It is contended before me that the
AEO does not have jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary
proceedings by himself without first directing the Manager to
initiate disciplinary proceedings. Only if, pursuant to such
directions, the Manager does not initiate disciplinary
proceedings, without justification, the educational authority can
initiate disciplinary proceedings against teacher of an aided
school by virtue of powers to Section 12A of the Kerala
Education Act. The petitioner also relies on the decision of this
Court in Yamuna.P.R. v. State of Kerala and others ILR 2007
(4) Kerala 426, in support of that contention. He would further
submit that the entire disciplinary proceedings are vitiated for
want of compliance with principles of natural justice in so far as
no enquiry worth the name as contemplated under Rule 75A of
Chapter XIVA of Kerala Education Rules has been conducted and
no copy of the enquiry report has been furnished to the
petitioner. The petitioner therefore submits that the entire
W.P(C) No. 8659 of 2008 -4-
proceedings are vitiated by malafides, lack of jurisdiction and
violation of principles of natural justice.
3. Counter affidavits have been filed by respondents 3 and
4 supporting the proceedings.
4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
5. I had earlier heard the matter on 14.7.2009. After
hearing at length, I had directed the learned Government
Pleader to make available the files relating to the case including
the proceedings of enquiry alleged to be held on 24.11.2007 and
the evidence taken on that date. Pursuant thereto, the 4th
respondent has filed an affidavit producing along with copies of
certain proceedings alleged to be the enquiry proceedings and
enquiry report. I am constrained to state that Ext.R4(a), which is
stated to be the enquiry proceedings is an apology of an enquiry
proceedings. Statements of certain persons have been recorded
in one sentence. It does not disclose that the petitioner had been
given an opportunity to cross examine those witnesses.
Thereafter some statements of the petitioner has also been
recorded. The enquiry report produced does not discuss any
evidence whatsoever and any of the contentions of the petitioner.
W.P(C) No. 8659 of 2008 -5-
6. Apart from the same, the disciplinary proceedings were
initiated by the AEO himself by issuing Ext.P7 charge memo.
Prior to issuing that charge memo, no direction was issued to the
Manager to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the
petitioner. The AEO himself directed the Manager to suspend
the petitioner. Every time, the suspension period was extended
as directed by the AEO and in Ext.P20 the Manager himself has
stated that he has done everything as per directions of the AEO
himself and the Manager has no complaint whatsoever against
any action of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner that
he has not been favoured with a copy of the alleged enquiry
report also has not been controverted effectively. For all the
above reasons, the entire proceedings initiated against the
petitioner suffer from the vices lack of jurisdiction and violation
of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the impugned
orders are quashed. The petitioner has already retired from
service on 31.3.2008. As such no fresh disciplinary proceedings
can now be conducted against the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, I direct that all arrears of salary and
retirement benefits of the petitioner shall be disbursed to the
W.P(C) No. 8659 of 2008 -6-
petitioner as if there were no disciplinary proceedings against
him. Orders in this regard shall be issued and arrears of salary
and retirement benefits due to the petitioner disbursed to him,
as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
rhs