IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2009 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1930 WA.No. 569 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.4920/2007 Dated 12/12/2008 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ A.K.EBRAHIMKUTTY, FORMERLY UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, CHERANALLOOR CHURCH U.P.SCHOOL, PERUMBAVOOR, RESIDING AT ANDETH HOUSE, EDAVOOR.P.O., BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM. 3. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PERUMBAVOOR. 4. MANAGER, CHERANALLUR CHURCH U.P.SCHOOL, PERUMBAVOOR. R1 TO 3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU R4 BY ADV. SRI. KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.) THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 569 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. The writ petition was filed by him, challenging Exts.P1 and P11 orders. The petitioner was a Upper Primary School Assistant, under the 4th respondent's school. He was charge sheeted for the offence of misbehaviour towards minor girl students. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against him ended in the Manager passing Ext.P1 order, removing him from service. The matter finally reached the Government. The Government also affirmed Ext.P1. As per the direction of this Court, the Government reconsidered the matter and passed the present impugned order, Ext.P11. The charge against the appellant was the following: “that you working as UPSA in Church UPS, Cheranalloor you were dealing classes for English and Science in Std. V for the year 1990-91 and it W.A.No. 569 of 2009 2 was revealed on enquiry that you while scrutinizing the notes of the girls pupils used to regain them very close to your seat and to pinch on their thigh and vagina, inserting your hands inside the undergarments of the pupils thereby you have committed grave misconduct and violated rule (v) of Chapter XIII and Rule 4 of Chapter XIV of the KER.” 2. For the very same conduct, which was the subject matter of the disciplinary action against the petitioner, he was prosecuted. He was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, as per judgment dated 25.10.1994 in C.C.No. 722 of 1991 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Perumbavoor. Crl.A. 155 of 1994 filed by him, against the said judgment, was dismissed by the Sessions Court on 29.9.1996. He filed a revision petition before this Court. During the pendency of the Revision Petition, the victim came forward and the case was compounded under Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'the Cr.P.C.') and the petitioner was acquitted of the offence. The petitioner submits that without holding a proper enquiry, the finding of guilt was entered W.A.No. 569 of 2009 3 against him. Therefore, the disciplinary action is vitiated. Now that he has been acquitted by this Court, by virtue of Section 320(8) of the Cr.P.C., it should be treated that he is acquitted of all blame. The learned Single Judge considered the above contentions and repelled them. Hence this appeal. 3. The above contentions were reiterated by the learned counsel for the appellant. We notice that, in the criminal trial, he got all opportunities to establish his innocence. Even though the trial court and the appellate court found him guilty, he got acquittal from this Court only because the victim came before this Court and compounded the matter. In other words, he was not acquitted honourably. This Court never found that the findings of the courts below are unsustainable on merits. Even assuming that there is some flaw in the disciplinary proceedings, the same is cured by the findings of the trial court and the appellate court. In view of the misconduct alleged against the petitioner, we feel that he should not be allowed to darken the doors of the school any more. W.A.No. 569 of 2009 4 4. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm