IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2009 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 26618 of 2009(V) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.A.RUGMINI AMMA, THE MANAGER,V.H.S.S.CHATHIARA, THAMARAKKULAM. BY ADVS.MR.M.V.BOSE MR.VINOD MADHAVAN SMT.NISHA BOSE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ALAPPUZHA. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MAVELIKKARA. 5. SMT.S.SREEKUMARY, HEAD MISTRESS (UNDER SUSPENSION), PUTHENMADOM,KADUVINAL P.O., VALLIKUNNAM-690501. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.T.B.RAMANI R5 BY ADV. MR.T.A.RAJAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.26618/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE MASS COMPLAINT OF THE TEACHERS WITH THE FORWARDING LETTER DTD. 17.11.08. P2:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BEFORE THE HONOURABLE EDUCATION MINISTER. P3:- COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE D.E.O. DTD. 20.11.08. P4:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 6.1.09 FROM SREEKUMARY TO MANAGER VHSS, THATHIYARA. P5:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 12.2.09 RECEIVED FROM SMT. G.K. JAYALAKSHMY THE TEACHER IN CHARGE. P6:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.D 7.10.08 IN WPC. 5414/08. P7:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 25.2.09 OF THE MANAGER, VHSS, CHATHIYARA. P8:- COPY OF THE REQUEST FROM MANAGER, VHSS CHATHIYARA TO 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 25.2.09. P9:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 11.3.09. P10:- COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 18.5.09. P11:- COPY OF THE REUEST OF THE MANAGER DTD. 26.5.09 BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION. P12:- COPY OF THE INTIMATION AND REUEST DTD. 12.6.09 MADE BEFORE THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER. P13:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 12.8.09 FROM THE D.E.O TO THE PETITIONER. P14:- COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DTD. 18.2.09, ISSUED BY THE MANAGER, CHATHIYARA VHSS TO 5TH RESPONDENT. P15:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL IST CLASS MAGISTRATE, MAVELIKKARA, DTD. 13.7.09. P16:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD./ 10.9.09 FOR THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P17:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 13.1.09 BEFORE THE VANITHA COMMISSION. P18:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 28.7.09 FROM STAFF SECRETARY, VHSS CHATHIYAR,A TO SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NOORANADU. P19:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 6.1.09 PREFERREED BEFORE THE DPI. W.P.(C) NO.26618/2009 P20:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 24.2.09 FROM S.SREEKUMARI TO MANAGER, V.H.S.S.CHATHIARA. P21:- COPY OF THE REMINDER DTD. 6.10.08 FROM DEO, MAVELIKKARA. P22:- COPY OF THE REMARK DTD. 17.11.09 OF THE D.E.O., MAVELIKKARA. P23:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 30.12.08 FROM PRINCIPAL (SREEKUMARY), VHSS, CHATHIYARA. P24:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 21.1.09 FROM A STUDENT MANJULA TO THE MANAGER, VHSS, CHATHIYARA. P25:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 8.9.09 FROM BEEGAM K., RAHANA, STAFF SECRETARY, VHSS CHATHIYARA. P26:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 20.10.09 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R5(a):- COPY OF THE CHARGE REPORT DTD. 22.9.09 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. R5(b) :- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B6.6616/D.DIS DTD. 14.9.07. R5(c):- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 4.11.08 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER OF THE SCHOOL. R5(d):- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B6.3343/08 DTD. 1.12.08. R5(e):- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B6.639/08.L.DIS. DTD. 28.1.09 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. R5(f):- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B6.137309 DTD. 24.2.09. R5(g):- COPY OF THE ENUIRY REPORT WITH THE COVERING LETTERS. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.26618 of 2009-V - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of October, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner herein is the present manager of V.H.S. School, Chathiyara, Thamarakkulam. The 5th respondent is the Headmistress under suspension, who was ordered to be reinstated as per Ext.P16 order passed by the Deputy Director of Education. 2. The husband of the petitioner was the previous manager. During his managership, the 5th respondent was promoted as Headmistress. On the basis of certain allegations, the Headmistress was placed under suspension by Ext.P7 dated 25.2.2009. Ext.P7 contains the summary of charges also against the Headmistress. By Ext.P8, the then manager sought for permission for extension of the period of suspension beyond 15 days as contemplated under Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R. The Deputy Director of Education, Alappuzha as per Ext.P9, granted permission for extension of the period of suspension beyond 15 days, pending detailed enquiry under the said provision. For the purpose of conducting detailed enquiry, by Ext.P10 a notice was issued to the parties to appear on 29.9.2009 by the third respondent. wpc 26618/2009 2 3. It appears that the enquiry was postponed from 29.5.2009 at the request of the then manager. Subsequently, he died on 11.6.2009 and the petitioner has been nominated by the legal heirs of the then manager to act as manager of the school. The application for approval of the appointment as manager is pending. Presently, by Ext.P16 the Deputy Director of Education ordered reinstatement of the 5th respondent in service, after revoking the suspension, in the light of the direction issued by the Director of Public Instruction dated 4.7.2009. 4. Learned counsel for the 5th respondent submitted that against Ext.P9, the 5th respondent had moved the Director of Public Instruction, but no hearing was conducted. He had also moved the Government in the matter. It is the case of the 5th respondent that the suspension ordered by the manager is without any justification and the departmental officers have already conducted an enquiry in the matter. Ext.R5(g) is a detailed report submitted by the District Educational Officer. It is the case of the 5th respondent that at the instance of the teacher in charge and the clerk of the school, she was being physically prevented also from functioning as the Headmistress. 5. I am not going in detail to the dispute between the parties, in the light of the fact that Ext.P16 cannot be sustained for the reason that the wpc 26618/2009 3 Deputy Director of Education passed the order only under the directions of the Director of Public Instruction and without any independent consideration which amounts to acting under dictation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Rule 67(9) of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R., it is the superior authority alone who could have passed an order since the period of suspension extends beyond six months. It is therefore submitted that the Director of Public Instruction has not reviewed the suspension and has directed the Deputy Director of Education to pass an order revoking the order of suspension. No hearing was conducted by the Director of Public Instruction. Therefore, it is submitted that the Director of Public Instruction has not independently assessed the matter to arrive at the correct decision. Learned counsel for the fifth respondent submitted that going by sub-rule (8A) of Rule 67, the Deputy Director of Education himself is empowered to revoke the suspension and therefore Ext.P16 cannot be faulted. 6. It is true that under sub-rule (8A) of Rule 67, the authority who permitted the suspension beyond 15 days or any higher authority may at any time during the pendency of such suspension, review such permission and if such authority is satisfied that the teacher under suspension has to be reinstated in service for reasons to be recorded in writing, cancel the permission already ordered under sub-rule (8) and direct the Manager to wpc 26618/2009 4 reinstate the teacher in service. A reading of Ext.P16 herein shows that the Deputy Director of Education was implementing the directions issued by the Director of Public Instruction without satisfying himself that the Headmistress has to be reinstated in service for reasons to be recorded in writing. A reading of Ext.P16 further shows that the Director of Public Instruction, as per letter dated 4.7.2009 authorised the Deputy Director of Education “to make necessary arrangements to reinstate Smt. Sreekumari, suspended Headmistress with immediate effect.” In terms of the said direction and in view of the fact that there is no approved manager in the school at present, the Deputy Director of Education revoked the order of suspension and ordered reinstatement of the Headmistress. That cannot be termed as an exercise of the power conferred under sub-rule (8A) of Rule 67 of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R. since the satisfaction that the teacher under suspension has to be reinstated in service, is not recorded in Ext.P16 with any cogent reasons. 7. Therefore, even though learned counsel for the 5th respondent vehemently submitted that Ext.P16 order could be sustained in the light of the power conferred under sub-rule (8A) of Rule 67, I am not satisfied that the Deputy Director of Education was acting in exercise of the said power, but he was only following the directions issued by the Director of Public wpc 26618/2009 5 Instruction in letter dated 4.7.2009. 8. Learned Govt. Pleader made available the relevant files leading to the letter dated 4.7.2009 of the Director of Public Instruction. In the said letter, the Director of Public Instruction has authorised the Deputy Director of Education to take steps to reinstate the Headmistress in service immediately. A letter dated 6.8.2009 issued by the Government to the Director of Public Instruction authorising the Deputy Director of Education, Alappuzha to reinstate the suspended Headmistress Smt. Sreekumari forthwith, is also available in the file. 9. Therefore, it is clear that the Director of Public Instruction has not been exercising his power under sub-rule (9) of Rule 67, evidently. He has not independently reviewed the question whether the Headmistress has to be kept under suspension or not, as the letter issued by the Director of Public Instruction was only in implementation of the directions issued by the Government in the matter. In Ext.P16, it is mentioned in para 2 that 5th respondent had filed an appeal before the Director of Public Instruction, on which the Director of Public Instruction proposed to conduct a hearing on 16.6.2009 and it was postponed due to the sudden demise of the Manager. Thus, the Director of Public Instruction had issued the letter dated 4.7.2009 without hearing both sides and hence there is violation of the principles of wpc 26618/2009 6 natural justice. The same vitiates the entire action, resulting in Ext.P16. 10. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the matter will have to be considered by the Director of Public Instruction itself, so that there will be a proper determination of the issues involved. 11. To enable the Director of Public Instruction to pass a fresh order, Ext.P16 is quashed. There will be a direction to the second respondent to take a decision on the appeal dated 5.5.2009 filed by the 5th respondent challenging Ext.P9 and appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment with notice to the petitioner and the 5th respondent, even though the application for approval of the manager is still pending before the District Educational Officer for appropriate orders. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/