IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 8048 of 2009(A)
1. K.ABDUL LATHEEF,MANAGER,MSM HIGHER
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY TO
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY
3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER
4. SHAHUL HAMEED.K, LAB.ASSISTANT,
For Petitioner :SMT.S.KARTHIKA
For Respondent :SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :11/03/2010
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
W.P.(C).No. 8048 of 2009
==================
Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is the manager of a higher secondary school, who
initiated disciplinary proceedings against the 4th respondent, who is a
Lab Assistant in the petitioner’s school. Charge sheet was issued and
the same was forwarded to the 2nd respondent-Director of Higher
Secondary Education, for conducting enquiry. The Director conducted
an enquiry and passed Ext.P9 order. In Ext.P9 order, after finding the
4th respondent guilty of the misconducts alleged against him, the
Director himself imposed the punishment of warning on the 4th
respondent and also directed that the period of suspension shall be
treated as eligible leave. The petitioner is challenging that part of
Ext.P9 order, whereby the Director himself imposed the punishment on
the 4th respondent and directed to treat the suspension period as
eligible leave. According to the petitioner, the disciplinary authority is
the manager of the school and the power to impose punishment and to
decide as to how the period of suspension has to be treated is, in the
first instance, on the manager. Therefore, the Director could not have
by himself imposed on the 4th respondent, punishment also and
directed how to treat the suspension period.
2. The 1st respondent seeks to justify Ext.P9 order by filing a
counter affidavit.
w.p.c.8048/09 2
3. I have heard all parties.
4. The 1st respondent tries to sustain Ext.P9 based on the
Kerala Education Rules (KER). If the KER is applicable to Higher
Secondary Schools, then as per the KER, the power to impose
punishment is on the manager. The only condition is that that can only
be with the prior approval from the educational authorities. Even if the
KER is not applicable, primarily the power to impose punishment is on
the disciplinary authority, which in the case is the manager of the
school. That being so, that part of Ext.P9, whereby the Director himself
imposes the punishment of warning on the 4th respondent and directs
that the period of suspension be treated as eligible leave, is clearly
unsustainable. Accordingly, that part of Ext.P9 which does the above is
quashed. The manager shall now, after giving the 4th respondent an
opportunity of being heard, forward his proposal for punishment to
the 2nd respondent and also his proposal as to how to treat the
suspension period, to the 2nd respondent for approval. On receipt of
the same, the 2nd respondent shall pass appropriate orders thereon
and the petitioner may take further steps after affording an
opportunity of being head on the punishment to the 4th respondent.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge
w.p.c.8048/09 3