IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2008 / 24TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1058 of 2008(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M.T.ABDUL SALAM, URUDU TEACHER, B.E.M.U.P. SCHOOL, THRIKKEDERI, OTTAPPALAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE CORPORATE MANAGER, ALL C.S.I. SCHOOLS IN MALABAR & WAYNAD, BANK ROAD, CALICUT. 2. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OTTAPPALAM. 3. THE HEADMASTER, B.E.M.U.P. SCHOOL, THRIKKEDERI, OTTAPPALAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR FOR R3 SRI.HARIDAS FOR R3 BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA FOR R1 SRI.K.I.SAGEER FOR R1 BY G.P. SMT. T.B.REMANI FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 14.12.2007 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.10.2007 OF MR.GOPALAKRISHNAN TO FIRST RESPONDENT EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.12.2007 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.12.2008 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.1.2008 OF THE MANAGER EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT AND DELIVERY VOUCHER EVIDENCING THE SERVICE OF EXPLANATION BY THE PETITIONER EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF GOVT. ORDER DATED 29.4.2008 EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 26.5.2008 IN WP(C) NO.15351/2008 EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 4.6.2008 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a) TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDING DATED 21.12.2007 FORWARDED TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT EXT.R1(b) TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDING BEARNG NO.CM/DS/07-08/UP-14-A(1) DATED 24.12.07 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXT.R1(c) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE LETTER DELIVERY BOOK OF ALL C.S.I. SCHOOLS IN M ALABAR AND WAYANAD,EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF EXT.R1(b) BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.R1(d) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.EM(4)/62431/07/DPI/K.Dis DATED 28.12.07 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION EXT.R1(e) TRUE COPY OF REVISION PETITION DATED 31.12.07 FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE GOVT. EXT.R1(f) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 14.1.2008 IN WA NO.77/2008 OF DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT EXT.R1(f) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.2.2008 IN WA NO.77/2008 OF DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT EXT.R1(g) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.5.2008 IN WP(C) NO.14915/2008 OF THIS COURT EXT.R1(h) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DATED 11.2.2008 BEARING REFERENCE NO.CM/DS/07-08/UP-14/V.3 K.T. SANKARAN,J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.1058 of 2008 A -------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner, while working as Urudu Teacher in B.E.M.U.P. School, Thrikkederi, Ottappalam under the corporate management of the first respondent, was placed under suspension by the first respondent, Manager, as per Ext.P3 order dated 21.12.2007. The Assistant Educational Officer refused to approve the order of suspension. The Assistant Educational Officer passed Ext.P4 order dated 28.12.2007, holding thus - “In the above circumstances there is no valid ground for suspension of Sri.M.T.Abdul Salam, Urdu teacher, BEMUP School, Trikkateri. Hence I direct you to reinstate the Urdu teacher M.T.Abdul Salam in service forthwith. This order is issued under Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV A of KER.” 2. The Manager filed Ext.R1(e) revision dated 31.12.2007 before the Government, challenging Ext.P4 order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer. On 3.1.2008, the Manager passed Ext.P5 order, keeping WP(C) No.1058/2008 2 away the petitioner from duties for a period of 15 days from 6.1.2008 to 20.1.2008 or until final decision in the pending disciplinary matter, which ever is later. The operative portion of Ext.P5 order reads as follows:- “5. Under the above circumstances, I am of the view that in the public interest and in the interest of justice; this Urdu Teacher is required to be kept away from the duties, pending departmental enquiries, owing to the gravity of offences alleged to have been committed by him; for a further period of fifteen days w.e.f. 6.1.08 to 20.1.08 (both days inclusive) or until final decision in the pending disciplinary matter, which ever is later, all subjected to further orders of the Government, wherein, I do hereby pass orders to effect the above extension of 'Suspension' under the powers vested in me as per KER.” Reference No.1 in Ext.P5 is Ext.P4 order dated 28.12.2007 passed by the Assistant Educational Officer, Ottappalam. Ext.P5 order is under challenge in this Writ Petition filed by the petitioner, the Teacher. 3. During the pendency of Ext.R1(e) revision, first respondent, Manager, filed W.P.(C) No.737 of 2008 before this Court which was dismissed as per judgment dated 7.1.2008. Challenging the judgment in W.P.(C) No.737 of 2008, the first respondent filed W.A.No.77 of 2008 which was disposed of by WP(C) No.1058/2008 3 the judgment dated 7.2.2008, directing the Government to dispose of Ext.R1(e) revision within one month. Ext.R1(e) revision filed by the Manager was dismissed as per Ext.P7 order 29.4.2008. The Manager filed W.P.(C) No.14915 of 2008 challenging that order. When the Writ Petition came up for hearing, the Manager submitted that he would re-admit the teacher to duty in obedience to the directions issued by the Assistant Educational Officer and the Government. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by Ext.P8 judgment dated 26.5.2008. 4. The question involved in this Writ Petition is whether the Manager has jurisdiction to pass an order like Ext.P5. The jurisdiction of the Manager to suspend a teacher is contained in Section 12 of the Kerala Education Act and Rule 67 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules. Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Kerala Education Act provides that no teacher of an aided school shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank by the Manager without the previous sanction of the officer authorised by the Government in this behalf, or placed under suspension by the Manager for a continuous period exceeding 15 days without such previous sanction. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 67 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules empowers the Manager to place a teacher under suspension in the three contingencies mentioned therein, viz., (a) when disciplinary proceedings against him are contemplated or are pending or (b) when a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial or (c) when the final orders are pending in the disciplinary proceedings if the authority considers that in the then WP(C) No.1058/2008 4 prevailing circumstances it is necessary, in public interest that the teacher should be suspended from service. Sub-rule (8) of Rule 67 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules mandates that the Manager shall report the matter of suspension to the Educational Officer on the same day on which the order of suspension was passed. The Educational Officer shall thereupon make a preliminary investigation into the grounds of suspension. Sub-rule (8) of Rule 67 A of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules reads as follows:- “(8) Where the orders of suspension is made by the manager he shall on the same day report the matter together with reasons for the suspension to the Educational Officer and where the suspension is in respect of Headmaster of Secondary school and Training school such reports shall be sent to the Deputy Director (Education) also in addition to the Educational Officer. The Deputy Director (Education) if the suspension is in respect of Headmaster of a Secondary school or Training School and the Educational Officer in other cases shall thereupon make a preliminary investigation into the grounds of suspension. If on such investigations the authority is satisfied that there was no valid ground for the suspension he may direct the manager to reinstate the teacher with effect from the date of suspension and thereupon the teacher shall forthwith be reinstated by the WP(C) No.1058/2008 5 manager. If the teacher is not actually reinstated the teacher shall be deemed to have been on duty. It shall then be open to the Department to disburse the pay and allowances to the teacher as if he were not suspended and recover the amount so disbursed from the manager. If on such investigation it is found that there are valid grounds for such suspension, permission may be given to the manager to place the teacher under suspension beyond 15 days if necessary. The authority mentioned above shall pass orders permitting the suspension or otherwise within said 15 days.” 5. The Assistant Educational Officer passed Ext.P4 order dated 28.12.2007 in exercise of his power under Sub-rule (8) of Rule 67 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules. The Assistant Educational Officer directed the Manager to reinstate the teacher forthwith. When the Assistant Educational Officer has exercised jurisdiction under Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules and directed the Manager to reinstate the teacher in service, there cannot be any jurisdiction vested in the Manager to exercise his power of suspension under Rule 67(1) of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules or under Section 12(2) of Kerala Education Act. Section 12(2) of the Kerala Education Act and Rule 67(1) of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules empower the Manager to place a teacher under suspension for a limited period. His power is circumscribed by the limitation WP(C) No.1058/2008 6 contained in Rule 67 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules. Once the matter is reported to the Educational Officer, the Manager retains no such power either to extend the period of suspension or to continue the order of suspension or to keep the teacher under suspension till the disposal of the revision filed by the Manager against the order passed by the Educational Officer. Such a jurisdiction is not contemplated at all in the Kerala Education Rules. In this case, the Manager acted absolutely without jurisdiction in passing Ext.P5 order. Ext.P5 order is liable to be quashed and I do so. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. Ext.P5 order dated 3.1.2008 passed by the first respondent, Manager, is quashed. The petitioner would be entitled to all the consequential benefits including arrears of salary and continuity in service. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. cks