IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 9TH OCTOBER 2009 / 17TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 25957 of 2007(M) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ CORPORATE MANAGER, CORPORATE MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOLS, DIOCESE OF IDUKKI, THADIAMPAD P.O., IDUKKI. BY ADVS.MR.V.M.KURIAN MR.MATHEW B. KURIAN MR.K.T.THOMAS SMT.TULASI PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION (N) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, IDUKKI. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THODUPUZHA. 4. SMT. O.J.CICILLY, KUNNUMPURATHU VEEDU, MURIKKASSERRY P.O., IDUKKI. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.DILEEP MOHAN ADV. SMT.V.P.SEEMANDINI(AMICUS CURIAE) R4 BY ADV. MR.C.K.PRASAD, MR.ABHILASH S.FRANCIS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.25957/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 5.1.94 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 15.3.96 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 18.7.97 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 18.12.98 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 16.6.99 ISSUED BY the 3RD RESPONDENT. P6:- COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DTD. 11.9.01 OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER. P7:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 4.10.01 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P8:- COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 23.10.01 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P9:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 17.11.01 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P10:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 5.4.02 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P11:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 15.4.02 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. P12:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 22.11.05 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT P13:- COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DTD. 2.1.06 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT. P14:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 11.1.06 PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P15:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 3.8.07 PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P16:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 12.7.01 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P17:- COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DTD. 21.7.01 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P18:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 30.7.01 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO AEO, ADIMALI. P19:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 10.8.01 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P20:- COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 28.8.01 SUBMITTED BY 4TH RESPONDENT. W.P.(C) NO.25957/2007 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R4(a):- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.G.665/01 DTD. 30.7.01 WRITTEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE A.E.O. ADIMALY. R4(b):- COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD. 20.5.02 FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. R4(c):- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B2/1353702 DTD. 27.5.03. R4(d):- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 15.12.04 MADE TO THE TO 2ND RESPONDENT. R4(e):- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 30.9.05 IN WPC. NO.28020/05 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. R4(f):- COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DTD. 23.1.06 FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. R4(g):- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 5.1.07 IN WPC. 31330/06 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. R4(h):- COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD. 18.1.07 EXCLUDING THE ANNEXURES THERETO. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.25957 OF 2007 (M) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Writ Petition is filed praying for quashing Exts.P12 and P15 orders passed by the 2nd and Ist respondents. There is a further prayer to declare that the petitioner is entitled to impose major penalty of removal from service on the 4th respondent. 2. The 4th respondent commenced service under the petitioner, the Corporate Manager, in 1985 as a Full Time Menial. She was thereafter promoted as a Peon with effect from 1.8.1990. In so far as this writ Petition is concerned, Ext.P6 is an enquiry report submitted by the 3rd respondent, on certain allegations against the 4th respondent, who was then working as a Peon in the St. Thomas UPS, Mankuva. This report shows that in an enquiry conducted by him, the third respondent found that the allegations against the 4th respondent were proved. 3. The allegations dealt with in Ext.P6 are the misconducts conducted by the 4th respondent including that she had misbehaved with the Headmaster, other teachers and the Corporate Manager. It is also stated that she had committed WPC. No.25957/07 :2 : several acts of indiscipline in the school where she was previously working and that on 6.7.2001 she absented from working without even submitting any leave application. It is stated that the same misconduct was repeated on 10.7.2001 as well. On the above findings the DEO held that her presence in the school is not conducive for the smooth running of the school. 4. Based on Ext.P6 report, Ext.P7 show cause notice was issued by the petitioner informing the 4th respondent that in view of the fact that the misconducts alleged in Ext.P6 were all proved, it was proposed to remove her from service with the approval of the 3rd respondent. The Manager sought approval of the third respondent for removal of the petitioner, which was granted by the 3rd respondent as per Ext.P10 order dated 5.4.2002. It was accordingly by Ext.P11 order dated 15.4.2002, her services were terminated. 5. Fourth respondent filed an appeal before the DPI. Second respondent heard the parties and passed Ext.P12. Ext.P12 order shows that the DPI has accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and concluded that the misconducts alleged against the 4th WPC. No.25957/07 :3 : respondent were all proved against her. He also found that on two previous occasions viz on 9.12.1995 and on 20.10.1995 punishments were imposed on the 4th respondent for similar misconducts. However, despite all this, without any reasons whatsoever the 2nd respondent found that the misconducts were not grave enough warranting removal of the 4th respondent from service. After setting aside the removal the 2nd respondent ordered that the 4th respondent be reinstated imposing the punishment of barring of increments and further ordered that the period kept out being regularized. Against this order invoking revisional power of the first respondent under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV-A KER, petitioner filed Ext.P13 revision and that was rejected by Ext.P15 reiterating the reasons stated in Ext.P12. It is challenging Ext.P12 and P15 orders referred to above, the writ petition is filed. 6. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the 2nd respondent was justified in interfering with the punishment imposed on the 4th respondent and whether Ext.P15 order confirming Ext.P12 is correct. As noticed by the 2nd respondent himself in Ext.P12, on 9.12.1994, punishment was imposed on WPC. No.25957/07 :4 : the petitioner for misconducts similar to those leading to Ext.P11 order of termination. After that on 20.10.1995, again pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings punishment was imposed barring increment with cumulative effect. As rightly found in Exts.P10 and P11, neither of these punishment resulted in any improvement in the conduct of the petitioner. On the other hand she continued to commit misconducts, the gravity of which only increased. The misconducts committed by the 4th respondent are dealt with in detail in Exts.P6 and P9. All these have been upheld by the 2nd respondent, but however, without any reason what soever he concluded that the misconducts are not grave enough warranting removal of the 4th respondent from service. 7. In my view, the 2nd respondent has clearly erred in coming to the aforesaid conclusion. Ext.P11 is the third occasion when punishment was imposed on the 4th respondent. Since punishment was imposed on the 4th respondent that too for misconducts committed in the school premises. As rightly found by the 3rd respondent in Ext.P6 enquiry report, despite the punishments imposed the 4th respondent continued to commit misconducts. Further the order does not say why the punishment WPC. No.25957/07 :5 : imposed by the Disciplinary Authority called for interference. In my view, unless the punishment imposed was held disproportionate or shocking the conscience of the appellate authority, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority would not have been interfered. 8. In these circumstances I cannot upheld Ext.P12 order interfering with the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and Ext.P12 is set aside. Necessarily, Ext.P15 order rejecting the revision filed by the manager is also set aside. Writ Petition is allowed as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/