IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2010 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 28985 of 2010(W) PETITIONER: --------------- G.B.SASIKUMAR, AGED 54 YEARS S/O.BHASKARAN PILLAI, HEAD MASTER (UNDER SUSPENSION) ESWARA VILASOM HIGH SCHOOL, NILESWARAM PO, NEDUVATHOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001 2. THE MANAGER ESWARA VILASOM HIGH SCHOOL & ESWARA VILASAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, NILESWARAM PO, NEDUVATHOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 001 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KOTTARAKKARA-691 506. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION) KOLLAM 691 001 5. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001 6. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION, KOTTARAKKARA KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 001. R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.T.MOHAMOOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/12/2010, THE COURT ON 15/12/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MASS COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE 30 STAFF MEMBERS OF THE SCHOOL BEFORE THE HEADMASTER. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 22.1.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE 30 STAFF MEMBERS OF THE SCHOOL BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(Rt) NO.2701/2009/G.EDN. DATED 3.7.2009. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 16.8.2010. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 26.8.2010. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 6.7.2010, BY THE STUDENTS. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN REPLY GIVEN BY THE STUDENTS DATED 7.7.2010. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER NO.1/10 DATED 30.8.2010. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B4/15058/2010 DATED 9.9.2010. EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 18.9.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE S.I. OF POLICE, KOTTARAKKARA. EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 18.9.2010. EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.5480/A3/CO/G.E-22 DATED 18.9.2010. EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 17.9.2010. EXT.P14 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(Rt)NO.4576/2010/G.EDN. DATED 25.10.2010. EXT.P15 TRUE COPY OF THE INQUIRY REPORT DATED 19.11.2010 BY THE DEO, KOTTARAKKARA. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(Rt)NO.4576/10/G.EDN. DATED 25.10.2010. EXT.R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.56480/A3/10/G. DATED 18.9.2010 OF THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. EXT.R2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.10.2007 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOLLAM. EXT.R2(c) TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 18.4.2009 BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOLLAM. EXT.R2(d) TRUE COPIES OF THE MEMO DATED 3.8.2002 AND 9.8.2002 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R2(e) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.8.2002 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.R2(f) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.11.2002 IN O.P.NO.13444 OF 2002. EXT.R2(g) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 2.9.2002 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL, EVHSS TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R2(h) TRUE COPY OF THE WARNING LETTER DATED 9.9.2002 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL, EVHSS. EXT.R2(i) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.1.2009 SENT TO THE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.R2(j) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 13.2.2009 PREFERRED BY SMT.JAYAKUMARI, HSA, EASWARA VILASOM HIGH SCHOOL. EXT.R2(k) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 12.3.2010 PREFERRED BY THE TEACHERS OF EVHSS. EXT.R2(l) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.9.2010 INTIMATED TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, KOLLAM. EXT.R2(m) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES. EXT.R2(n) TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS DATED 2.12.2010. EXT.R2(o) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2.12.2010 TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOLLAM. //TRUE COPY// AHZ/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C). NO. 28985 OF 2010 W ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition was filed by G.B.Sasikumar, the Headmaster of Eswara Vilasom High School, Neduvathoor in Kollam District, challenging the suspension order made against him by the second respondent Manager. In view of the subsequent events, the Writ Petition was amended twice and at present, the challenge is against Ext.P14 order dated 25.10.2010 passed by the Government. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows. The petitioner was appointed as H.S.A.(Maths) in the School in the year 1978. He was subsequently promoted as Headmaster with effect from 1.4.2007. At that time, the Manager of the School was one Sathyapalan. The present Manager, namely, Sri.Suresh Kumar, purchased the School in the year 1995. Thereafter, he created several problems in the School. A complaint was made by thirty staff members out of 33 in the School to the Headmaster. Thereafter, Ext.P2 complaint was also submitted by the teaching and non-teaching staff of the School, thirty in number, to the Government. In Ext.P2, various allegations W.P.(C) NO.28985 OF 2010 W :: 2 :: were levelled against the second respondent Manager. It is stated therein that the Manager used to harass the teachers and non- teaching staff of the School. He abused the lady staff in filthy language. He also used to manhandle the teachers and non- teaching staff of the School. A complaint was filed against the second respondent before the Sub Inspector of Police, Kottarakkara on the allegation that he brutally manhandled an Upper Primary School Assistant. 3. On the basis of the petitions filed before the authorities making allegations against the Manager, an enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Director of Education, based on the directions in W.P. (C) No.5239 of 2009. Ext.P3 order was issued by the Government on receipt of the report made by the Deputy Director of Education. In Ext.P3, it is stated that the Headmaster, the Manager and the teachers assured that a congenial atmosphere would be maintained in the School. Ext.P3 order was passed on 3.7.2009. 4. It would appear that the Manager raised several allegations against the Headmaster. The Manager issued Ext.P8 order of W.P.(C) NO.28985 OF 2010 W :: 3 :: suspension dated 30.8.2010. In the order of suspension, it is alleged that the Headmaster attempted to harass Jayakumari, who was working as H.S.A.. It is also alleged that there was default on the part of the Headmaster in submitting the salary bills of the teachers. On 26.6.2010 and 5.7.2010, there was hartal. On those dates, the Headmaster and a few of the staff members failed to attend the School. However, attendance was marked by them in the Attendance Register. The school gate was closed on those days. The Headmaster failed to supervise the activities of the staff and to maintain a healthy atmosphere in the School. Certain records were missing from the custody of the Headmaster, which caused difficulties to the pupils and the parents. Though several opportunities were afforded to the Headmaster to rectify the defects, he failed to do so and he continued his misconduct. A memo dated 16.8.2010 was issued to him calling for explanation. Though the Headmaster submitted explanation, it was found to be unsatisfactory. The suspension order was for a period of fifteen days. The matter was reported to the Educational Officer concerned. 5. The Deputy Director conducted a preliminary enquiry on W.P.(C) NO.28985 OF 2010 W :: 4 :: 8.9.2010. Ext.P9 order dated 9.9.2010 was passed by the Deputy Director of Education cancelling Ext.P8 order of suspension. In Ext.P9 order, it was found that the allegations levelled by the Manager against the Headmaster are frivolous and they are intended to suit the convenience of the Manager. It was also held that there was no justifiable ground for suspension. 6. It is alleged by the petitioner that he was not allowed to enter into the School compound even after Ext.P9 order was passed by the Deputy Director of Education. The petitioner was prevented by a goonda, who was deputed by the Manager near the gate. 7. The Manager filed a Revision before the Government challenging Ext.P9 order. In the Revision, the Government passed an interim order of stay, as per Ext.P12 dated 18.9.2010. Ext.P12 order was challenged in the Writ Petition by amending the Writ Petition. An interim order dated 4.10.2010 was passed in the Writ Petition. The relevant portion of the order dated 4.10.2010 reads as follows: W.P.(C) NO.28985 OF 2010 W :: 5 :: “6. The Government granted a stay pending disposal of the revision petition. That order was passed without hearing the Writ Petitioner. Even if an ad interim order of stay was to be granted, normally, it could be either for a limited period or until further orders. The respondent in the revision should get an opportunity to contest the prayer for stay. The Government is bound to hear the respondent and to decide whether the stay should be continued or whether the stay should be vacated. In the present case, the stay was granted pending disposal of the revision petition. I am of the view that such an order staying the order impugned in the revision till the disposal of the revision without hearing the petitioner, was not proper. Therefore, I am inclined to limit the operation of stay under Ext.P12 for a period of two weeks from today. The Government shall hear the Writ Petitioner as well as the Manager and shall pass appropriate orders either in the stay petition or in the revision petition. After hearing, if the Government is of the opinion that the revision itself to be disposed of, this order would not stand in the way of the Government in disposing of the revision itself. At any rate, the Government shall pass final order in the stay petition within a period of two weeks from today. Beyond two weeks, the stay order will have no operation. The parties shall appear before the first respondent on 11th October, 2010. The first respondent may take up the W.P.(C) NO.28985 OF 2010 W :: 6 :: case either on that date or on any other date which may be convenient, before the expiry of two weeks.” 8. Thereafter, the Government heard the parties and issued Ext.P14 order dated 25.10.2010. Ext.P14 is challenged by the petitioner by amending the Writ Petition and adding additional reliefs. In Ext.P14, it is stated that the order directing reinstatement of the petitioner was not justified. It was also held that the Deputy Director of Education did not examine the case in detail and did not find whether the allegations levelled against the Headmaster were true. Ext.P14 further shows that a thorough enquiry into the allegations against the Headmaster was found necessary. The District Educational Officer was directed to conduct a detailed enquiry into the allegations against the Headmaster. In these circumstances, the first respondent held that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Education could not be sustained. The Manager was also directed, after receipt of the enquiry report from the District Educational Officer, to examine whether the action initiated against the Headmaster should be sustained and to convey his decision to the Deputy Director of Education within two weeks from the date of receipt of the report from the District Educational Officer. The W.P.(C) NO.28985 OF 2010 W :: 7 :: Manager was also directed to finalize the disciplinary action against the petitioner on the basis of the further directions from the Deputy Director of Education. 9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as directed by the Government, the District Educational Officer conducted an enquiry on 19.11.2010 and Ext.P15 report was submitted. A perusal of Ext.P15 report shows that the allegations levelled against the Headmaster were not substantiated. Each and every allegation against the Headmaster was dealt with by the District Educational Officer and he found in Ext.P15 report that those allegations were not substantiated. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a perusal of Ext.P15 report would clearly indicate that the Manager was making unfounded allegations against the Headmaster and the staff of the School. The counsel also submitted that the said report would justify the case of the petitioner and the other staff members of the School that the Manager was indulging in all sorts of illegal activities and that the allegations levelled against the Manager by the Headmaster and the teachers are true. W.P.(C) NO.28985 OF 2010 W :: 8 :: 10. A counter affidavit is filed by the second respondent. He also filed an additional counter affidavit. The contentions raised in the counter affidavit, in brief, are the following: The petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands. The second respondent took over the School in the year 1995. At the time when the petitioner was appointed as teacher-in-charge in the School in 2006, there were 26 divisions and 1600 students in the High School. Now, there are only 14 divisions and 540 students. This happened as a result of the maladministration by the petitioner. The acts of the petitioner have affected the reputation of the School. The petitioner, as Headmaster, did not make earnest efforts to recover the lost school records of pupils and staff. He attempted to manhandle Jayakumari, H.S.A. The Headmaster was not efficient in supervising the affairs of the School. He could not even control the peon in the School, who misbehaved to teachers and to the students. The petitioner obtained signatures of several students in the School by misleading them. The petitioner circulated the news to the media and thus tarnished the image of the School. It is stated that the second respondent is also conducting another school about 6 Kms. away from the School in question. In that school, there are 65 staff W.P.(C) NO.28985 OF 2010 W :: 9 :: members and 1600 students. There is no problem in that school. In respect of the contention raised by the petitioner that the second respondent Manager is an abkari contractor, the second respondent submitted that it is true that he was engaged in abkari business about ten years ago. But now, he is not engaged in any abkari business. The petitioner was warned by the Deputy Director of Education, as evidenced by Ext.R2(b) letter dated 10.10.2007. The petitioner failed to discharge his duties as Headmaster. There were several instances of misconduct, dereliction of duty, incompetency and misbehaviour to teachers. The allegation that the second respondent engaged a goonda at the gate of the School is denied. The other allegations raised in the Writ Petition against the second respondent were also denied. It is alleged by the second respondent that the petitioner submitted an application to get appointment to the post of HSST (Maths) for the year 2000-2001 and 2001-02. Though the second respondent issued a memo for interview, the petitioner did not produce the relevant certificates. In spite of the non- production of the certificates, the petitioner was allowed to participate in the interview. However, he could not produce the certificates later. Therefore, another person was appointed. Aggrieved by this, the W.P.(C) NO.28985 OF 2010 W :: 10 :: petitioner filed O.P.No.13444 of 2002, which was dismissed on the merits as per Ext.R2(f) judgment dated 26.11.2002. The petitioner was served with memos by the former Manager on more than one occasion. The petitioner misbehaved towards Jayakumari, which resulted in a complaint filed by her before the Kerala Women's Commission. In Ext.P3 order, the Government held that there was no necessity for intervening in the dispute and the Government rejected all the contentions raised by the petitioner. The allegation that the second respondent managed to get signatures of the students was denied. On the other hand, it is alleged by the second respondent that the petitioner obtained the signatures of students and made false complaints against the Manager. The second respondent stated that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Education was challenged by him before the Government under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules. The Government passed an order of stay, as per Ext.P12 order dated 18.9.2010. Later, after the interim order dated 4.10.2010 was passed in the Writ Petition, the Government disposed of the Revision. The Revision was allowed as per Ext.P14 order dated 25.10.2010. The challenge against Ext.P14 order is unsustainable. W.P.(C) NO.28985 OF 2010 W :: 11 :: 11. Sri.M.V.Thamban, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the Deputy Director of Education rejected the contentions of the Manager and the Manager was directed to reinstate the petitioner. As per Ext.P14 order, no permission was granted to continue the suspension order and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though in Ext.P14 order it was held that Ext.P9 order passed by the Deputy Director of Education is unsustainable, the order passed by the Government in Ext.P14 only directs an enquiry to be made against the petitioner. There is no indication that the suspension should continue. The learned counsel also submitted that the District Educational Officer conducted an enquiry as directed in Ext.P14 order and it was found that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are unfounded. The subsequent events also would justify the challenge against Ext.P14 order. 12. Sri.M.K.Chandramohan Das, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the Government Order, Ext.P14, when read as a whole, would clearly indicate that the W.P.(C) NO.28985 OF 2010 W :: 12 :: suspension of the petitioner should continue. Ext.P14 order was passed by the Government after considering all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. There is no ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel also submitted that reinstatement of the petitioner would affect the discipline in the School. The congenial atmosphere in the School would be seriously jeopardised by his reinstatement. 13. Learned Government Pleader submitted that two options were available before the Government while passing Ext.P14 order, namely, either to continue the suspension or to revoke the suspension by dismissing the Revision. The Government allowed the Revision and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Director of Education. Ext.P14 order would clearly indicate that the intention was to keep the suspension alive. 14. I have carefully gone through the pleadings and the various orders produced by both the parties. The petitioner was placed under suspension as per Ext.P8 order dated 30.8.2010. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Director of W.P.(C) NO.28985 OF 2010 W :: 13 :: Education on 8.9.2010. The Deputy Director of Education, in Ext.P9 order, considered the various allegations levelled against the petitioner and it was specifically found that the allegations levelled against the petitioner were not sufficient to continue the suspension order. Accordingly, the District Educational Officer was directed to enquire into the allegations raised by the Manager, but, at the same time, it was held that the Headmaster should be reinstated in service forthwith. The District Educational Officer was directed to release the pay and allowances due to the Headmaster with effect from the date of suspension. 15. The Government had originally granted Ext.P12 order of stay. Since the order of the Deputy Director was sought to be implemented in the Writ Petition, the petitioner amended the Writ Petition and challenged Ext.P12 order. An interim order dated 4.10.2010 was passed in the Writ Petition and the stay was limited to two weeks. The Government was directed to dispose of the Revision. Thereafter, the Government passed Ext.P14 order which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. The Government also directed the District Educational Officer to conduct an enquiry. The W.P.(C) NO.28985 OF 2010 W :: 14 :: District Educational Officer conducted enquiry and submitted Ext.P15 report. Ext.P15 report would reveal that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are not substantiated. I am of the view that the first respondent was not justified in interfering with the well considered order passed by the Deputy Director of Education. There was no sufficient ground for interfering with the order passed by the Deputy Director of Education. The Government, in Ext.P14 order, did not consider all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules. It is true that the revisional jurisdiction is wide enough to set aside the orders passed by the lower authorities. However, the Government, in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction was not justified in reversing the well considered order passed by the Deputy Director, and that too without properly considering whether those findings of fact arrived at by the Deputy Director of Education were based on sufficient materials and data. There is no case for the first respondent that the Deputy Director omitted to consider any fact. There is also no case that the Deputy Director did not hear the parties. I am also of the view that the subsequent events after Ext.P14 order are also W.P.(C) NO.28985 OF 2010 W :: 15 :: relevant. The District Educational Officer found in Ext.P15 report that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are unfounded. The report of the District Educational Officer deals with all the allegations levelled against the Headmaster. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and Ext.P14 order passed by the first respondent is quashed. Ext.P9 order passed by the Deputy Director of Education shall be in force and that order is liable to be implemented. The Manager shall comply with the directions in Ext.P9 order dated 9.9.2010 passed by the Deputy Director of Education. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/