IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30376 of 2010(V)
1. THE MANAGER, ST.THOMAS HIGH SCHOOL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER,
3. THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :27/10/2010
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.30376 of 2010
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of October, 2010
JUDGMENT
The questions involved in this Writ Petition are the
following :
(i) Whether the District Educational Officer has
jurisdiction to exercise the power under Rule 7 of
Chapter III of the Kerala Education Rules ?
(ii) Whether a punishment of censure could be imposed
on a Manager invoking jurisdiction under Rule 7 of
Chapter III of the Kerala Education Rules ?
(iii) Whether the penalty of censure could be imposed on
a Manager by exercising jurisdiction under Rule 65 of
Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules ?
(iv) Whether a punishment of censure could be imposed
on the Manager without affording an opportunity of
being heard ?
WPC No.30376/2010 2
2. The petitioner is the Manager of the St.Thomas High
School, Punnakkode. One Shibu Samuel filed an application to
the Headmaster of St.Thomas High School, he being the Public
Information Officer under the provisions of the Right to
Information Act. It would appear that some of the informations
sought for could not be given by the Public Information Officer
(Headmaster). The Headmaster requested the Manager to give
the necessary information. The Manager replied and provided
the available information according to him. Exhibit P8
application dated 14.10.2009 was submitted by Shibu Samuel to
the Public Information Officer, Office of the District Educational
Officer, Kottarakara requesting to furnish certain information
under the Right to Information Act. The District Educational
Officer directed the Headmaster of the school and the Manager
to furnish the information. The Headmaster submitted certain
information on 28.1.2010. As per Exhibit P1 dated 19.2.2010,
the District Educational Officer informed the Headmaster as well
as the Manager that the information supplied was not
satisfactory. The District Educational Officer directed the
Manager and the Headmaster to give correct answers for
WPC No.30376/2010 3
question Nos.2 and 3. It would appear that on 22.2.2010, as per
Exhibit P2, the Manager informed the District Educational
Officer that he had directed the Headmaster to give the
information. On 20.2.2010, the Headmaster sent Exhibit P3
letter to the Manager requesting him to furnish the necessary
details. On 22.2.2010, as per Exhibit P4, the Manager sent reply
to the Headmaster giving certain details.
3. The District Educational Officer, who is also the
appellate authority, under the Right to Information Act, passed
Exhibit P7 order dated 3.6.2010 imposing a penalty of censure
on the Manager as well as the Headmaster, exercising the power
under Rule 7(2) of Chapter III and Rule 65 of Chapter XIVA of
the Kerala Education Rules and under Section 20 of the Right to
Information Act. No notice was issued by the District
Educational Officer to the Manager before passing Exhibit P7
order. This Writ Petition is filed by the Manager to quash
Exhibit P7 order.
4. Rule 7 of Chapter III KER provides for taking action
WPC No.30376/2010 4
against the Manager or educational agency in the event of
mismanagement etc. Sub Rule I of Rule 7 reads as follows :
“(1) In the event of mismanagement,
malpractice, corruption or maladministration,
gross negligence of duty, or disobedience of
Departmental instruction on the part of the
Manager [or denial of appointment to a
qualified thrown out teacher who has a rightful
claim for reappointment by virtue of his/her
holding the post earlier or denial of promotion
to a teacher who is rightful claimant for
promotion by the Manager] [or conviction of
the Manager for an offence involving moral
turpitude] it shall be open to the Director, after
giving the Manager a reasonable opportunity to
show cause against the action proposed to be
taken and after due enquiry, to declare him
unfit to hold the office of Manager in the school
or in any other aided school and to require the
educational Agency to appoint a suitable
person as Manager.”
Action proposed to be taken under Rule 7 is to declare the
WPC No.30376/2010 5
Manager unfit to hold the office of the Manager and to require
the educational agency to appoint a suitable person as the
Manager. A punishment of censure is outside the scope of Rule 7
of Chapter III. The power under Rule 7 of Chapter III can be
exercised only by the Director, going by the Rule. As per G.O.
(P) No.52/80 G.Edn. dated 7.5.1980, the powers of the Director
under Rule 7 are delegated to the Deputy Director of Education
as well. The District Educational Officer is not an authority
under Rule 7 of Chapter III. Therefore, the District Educational
Officer was not justified in invoking the power under Rule 7 of
Chapter III of Kerala Education Rules. Rule 7 provides for a
reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action
proposed to be taken. The District Educational Officer has not
afforded an opportunity of being heard to the Manager. On that
ground also, it is to be held that Exhibit P7 order, to that extent,
is unsustainable.
5. The next question to be considered is whether a
punishment of censure could be imposed on the Manager under
Rule 65 of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules. Rule 65
WPC No.30376/2010 6
of Chapter XIVA provides that the penalties mentioned therein
may be imposed upon teachers of aided schools. One of the
penalties in Rule 65 is censure. Rule 65 does not indicate that
the penalty can be imposed under that Rule on the Manager.
The jurisdiction under Rule 65 could not be exercised to impose
a penalty on the Manager. Therefore, Exhibit P7 order imposing
the penalty on the Manager, exercising jurisdiction under Rule
65 of Chapter XIV A, is unsustainable.
6. Note 2 under Rule 65 of Chapter XIV A provides that
no punishment shall be imposed without giving the person
affected an opportunity to show cause against the action
proposed to be taken. In the present case, the DEO has not
given any such opportunity to the Manager. Therefore, Exhibit
P7, to that extent also, is unsustainable.
7. The next question to be considered is whether Exhibit
P7 is valid under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act. The
penalty to be imposed under Section 20 of the Right to
Information Act is Rs.250/- for each day till the information is
WPC No.30376/2010 7
furnished. However, the total amount of such penalty shall not
exceed 25,000/- rupees. The authority under Section 20,
exercising powers under Sub Section (2) of Section 20 would
request for disciplinary action under the service rules. The
proviso to Sub Section (1) of Section 20 mandates that a
reasonable opportunity of being heard should be given to the
person concerned before any penalty imposed on him. Since the
penalty contemplated under Section 20 of the Right to
Information Act was not imposed and since no opportunity of
being heard was given to the petitioner, Exhibit P7 order, to the
extent to which the District Educational Officer exercised the
power under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, is bad.
For the aforesaid reasons, Exhibit P7 is quashed. The District
Educational Officer shall dispose of the matter afresh, confining
the exercise of his power to Section 20 of the Right to
Information Act, after affording an opportunity of being heard to
the petitioner. Since the District Educational Officer can
exercise jurisdiction under Rule 65 of Chapter XIV A against the
Headmaster, it is made clear that as against the Headmaster, the
District Educational Officer would be competent to proceed
WPC No.30376/2010 8
under that Rule as well. Since Exhibit P7 is quashed on the
ground that no opportunity of being heard was afforded to any of
the parties, the District Educational Officer shall issue notice to
the Manager and the Headmaster before passing any order
against them.
The Writ Petition is allowed as above.
K.T.SANKARAN
JUDGE
csl