IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2009 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 11449 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- O.K.PRABHAKARAN, ASSISTANT TEACHER, CHEMANCHERY-KOLAKKAD UP SCHOOL, THUVVAKKODE P.O., KOYILANDY. BY ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. THE MANAGER, CHEMANCHERY-KOLAKKAD UP SCHOOL, THUVVAKKODE P.O., KOYILANDY. 4. THE HEADMASTER, CHEMANCHERY-KOLAKKAD UP SCHOOL, THUVVAKKODE P.O., KOYILANDY. ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED FOR R3 SRI.K.E.HAMZA FOR R3 SMT. M.R. SREELATHA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/10/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 19933 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jma WP(C).No. 11449 of 2009 APPENDIX Petitioners Exhibits: Ext.P1: A true copy of the order of suspension dt. nil Ext.P2: A true copy of the reply dt.3.4.2008. Ext.P3: A true copy of the memo of charges with statement of allegation dt.10.6.2008 Ext.P4: A true copy of the reply dt.6.8.2008 Ext.P5: A true copy of the order dt.26.4.2008 Ext.P6: A true copy of the notice dt.14.5.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent. Ext.P7: A true copy of the order of the 2nd respondent dt.28.5.2008 Ext.P8: A true copy of the notice dt.15.9.2008 Ext.P9: A true copy of the reply dt.7.10.2008 submitted by the petitioner. Ext.P10:A true copy of the representation dt.22.9.2008 submitted by the petitioner Ext.P11:A true copy of the order of the 1st respondent dt. 25.3.2009 /True copy/ P.A. To Judge jma 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