IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 11449 of 2009(A)
1. O.K.PRABHAKARAN, ASSISTANT TEACHER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
3. THE MANAGER, CHEMANCHERY-KOLAKKAD
4. THE HEADMASTER, CHEMANCHERY-KOLAKKAD
For Petitioner :SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN
For Respondent :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :27/10/2009
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P. (C) Nos.11449 & 19933 OF 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 27th day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner in WP(C) 11449/09 is a teacher in the
school managed by the 3rd respondent Manager. The manager
himself is a petitioner in the connected writ petition. These
two writ petitions are concerned with the action taken against
the teacher.
2. The teacher was suspended from service as per
Ext.P1 in WP(C) 11449/09 and he was issued the memo
charges in which he submitted explanation also. Suspension
was initially for a period of fifteen days, which was extended
by the 3rd respondent for conducting an enquiry.
3. The manager in the meanwhile, without conducting
a formal enquiry, terminated the teacher from service with
effect from the date of suspension. The AEO refused
permission for the same as per Ext.P7. It was also directed
that after completing disciplinary proceedings against him,
steps may be taken to reinstate him in the service. Thereafter
W.P. (C) Nos.11449 & 19933 OF 2009 .
: 2 :
the manager issued Ext.P8 informing the teacher that a
decision has been arrived to remove him from service. After
submitting the explanation as per Ext.P9, he approached AEO
as per Ext. P10. Ultimately, the DEO by Ext.P11 refused to
grant permission to impose the punishment on the ground that
the manager has not complied with the steps under Rule 75 of
the KER and natural justice was also been violated. The
teacher has therefore approached this court seeking for a
direction to the 3rd and 4th respondents to permit him to join
duty and disburse his salary and benefits from 2.9.2000
onwards. By an interim order dt. 6.4.2009, this court directed
the respondents 3 and 4 to retain the petitioner in service and
also to permit him to sign the attendance register.
Accordingly he has joined duty.
4. In WP(C) no. 19933/09, the main prayer sought for
is to direct the 3rd respondent, education officer to conduct
formal enquiry following the prescribed Rule 75 chapter A of
KER for taking up appropriate further action in the disciplinary
proceedings.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for either side.
The learned counsel for the teacher submitted that the
W.P. (C) Nos.11449 & 19933 OF 2009 .
: 3 :
manager is harassing him and therefore the disciplinary
enquiry that is proposed to be held will only result in hardship
to him. It is further pointed out that a reading of Ext.P11
shows that the DEO has found that the allegations against the
teacher are baseless and it is therefore submitted that
permission need not be granted to the manager to proceed
with the disciplinary enquiry as contemplated by Rule 75 of
chapter A KER. Learned counsel for the manager submitted
that the punishment proposed by him twice have been
interfered with. Permissions have been refused solely on the
ground that the relevant procedures under Rule 75 have not
been completed. Accordingly, the manager has forwarded the
records to the AEO for conducting a formal enquiry. Since this
is the requirement of Rule 75, the AEO cannot refuse to act
upon his request also.
6. The question is whether, the disciplinary actions so
far done by the Manager is valid, as Rule 75 was never
complied with. Even going by Ext.P7 the AEO at that point of
time had directed the manager to complete disciplinary action,
but without proceeding further in the matter a fresh notice was
issued proposing removal from service which was found
W.P. (C) Nos.11449 & 19933 OF 2009 .
: 4 :
irregular by the DEO as per Ext.P11.
7. So far a formal enquiry, as contemplated Rule (b)
of Rule 75 (1) has not been conducted by the AEO. Therefore
the contention of the learned counsel for the teacher that in
the light of Ext.P11, no formal enquiry need be conducted
cannot be accepted. Going by Rule 75(1)(b), it is for the AEO
to conduct the formal enquiry. Even though the learned
counsel for the teacher submitted that it will result in further
harassment of the teacher, since the enquiry is expected to be
conducted with the proper participation of the teacher he is
entitled to raise all his contentions before the AEO itself. He
has already rejoined duty which allows him to face the enquiry
while remaining in service.
8. In that view of the matter, the writ petitions are
disposed in the following manner:
1. The AEO will proceed under Rule 75(b) and
complete the enquiry within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
2. Regarding the prayer of the petitioner in WP
(C) No. 11449/09 for disbursal of salary etc., he can
approach the AEO in the matter and if a
representation is filed in that regard, the AEO will
W.P. (C) Nos.11449 & 19933 OF 2009 .
: 5 :
take appropriate decision in the matter. No costs.
( T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)
jma