IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2009 / 2ND SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 8659 of 2008(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- K. BALAN, HEADMASTER (UNDER SUSPENSION) MOORIYAD CENTRAL U.P. SCHOOL, MOORIYAD P.O. KANNUR DISTRICT. BY MR.M.K.DAMODARAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE MR.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN,ADVOCATE MR.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA,ADVOCATE MR.NISHIL.P.S.,ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR. 4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KOOTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. SMT. P.K.NALINI, MANAGER MOORIYAD CENTRAL U.P. SCHOOL,KUTTIKKATTIL HOUSE MOORIYAD P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. 6. SRI. K.PREMAN,ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KOOTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.DILIP MOHAN FOR R1TO4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No.8659/2008 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF G.O.(Rt.)No.4304/2000.G.Edn. DATED 24.10.2000. EXT.P2: COPY OF ORDER NO.E/292/01/K.DIS. DATED 1.1.2002 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF G.O.(Rt.) No.4188/06 G.Edn. DATED 27.9.2006. EXT.P4: COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 28.6.2007 FROM P.G.GOPI, ARUN NIVAS, KOOTHUPARAMBA TO THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER. EXT.P5: COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 10.4.2007 IN W.P.(C).No.34430/2006 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P6: COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.D.2356/2007 DATED 17.7.2007 FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO SMT.P.K.NARAYANI WITH COPY TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7: COPY OF CHARGE MEMO NO.D.2356/2007 DATED 28.9.2007 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 15.10.2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.D.2356/2007 DATED 6.11.2007 FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER DATED 12.11.2007 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 15.11.2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MANAGER. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.D.2356/2007 DATED 24.11.2007 FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT MANAGER WITH COPY TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P13: COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.D.2356/2007 DATED 27.11.2007 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT EXTENDING THE SUSPENSION OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P14: COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.D.2356/2007 DATED 26.12.2007 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE MANAGER WITH COPY TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P15: COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 27.12.2007 FROM THE MANAGER TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P16: COPY OF REVIEW APPLICATION DATED 31.12.2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. W.P.(C).No.8659/2008 3 EXT.P17: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.1.2008 IN W.P.(C).No.1668/2008. EXT.P18: COPY OF ORDER NO.D5/1813/2008 DATED 18.2.2008 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P19: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 5.10.2007 FROM THE 5TH RESPONDENT MANAGER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P20: COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 9.1.2009 FROM THE MANAGER TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P21: COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.D.2356/2007 DATED 25.2.2008 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P22: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 6.3.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MANAGER. EXT.P23: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.03.2008 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT MANAGER. TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 8659 of 2008 ................................................. Dated this the 24th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was the headmaster of the Mooriyad Central U.P. School in Kannur District, which is an aided school. He is aggrieved by the punishment imposed on him of reduction to the lower grade of UPSA in disciplinary proceedings initiated by the 4th respondent Assistant Educational Officer, Koothuparamba. On certain allegations of misconduct, by Ext.P7 memo of charges, the 4th respondent directed the petitioner to show cause why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against the petitioner for the allegations of misconduct enumerated therein. The petitioner filed Ext.P8 detailed reply to the charge sheet. Thereafter, by Ext.P9, the 4th respondent directed the manager to suspend the petitioner and to continue disciplinary proceedings. By Ext.P10, the Manager complied with the directions issued by the AEO and suspended the petitioner for a period of 15 days. Subsequently the Assistant Educational Officer himself directed extension of period of suspension by one W.P(C) No. 8659 of 2008 -2- month. By Ext.P14, the AEO directed the Manager to extend the period of suspension of the petitioner, until further orders. Pursuant thereto, by Ext.P15, the Manager continued the suspension until further orders. The petitioner approached this court by filing W.P(C) No. 1668/2008 in which I directed the Deputy Director of Education to pass orders on the representation filed by the petitioner. Pursuant to the same, by Ext.P18, the Assistant Educational Officer was directed to complete the disciplinary proceedings within seven days. Subsequently, by Ext.P23, the Manager imposed on the petitioner the punishment of reversion to the post of UPSA. Accordingly he was reinsisted with effect from 13.3.2008. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P7, P9, P10, P12, P15, P18 and P23. 2. According to the petitioner, the Assistant Educational Officer being personally interested in the matter with an ulterior motive of getting a relation of his appointed in the petitioners place, has initiated the disciplinary proceedings, that too without complying with the provisions of Section 12A of the Kerala Education Act. In support of this contention, the petitioner has W.P(C) No. 8659 of 2008 -3- produced Ext.P20 letter issued by the Manager to the petitioner stating that the Manager has absolutely no complaint against any action of the petitioner and that he was simply following the directions issued by the AEO. It is contended before me that the AEO does not have jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings by himself without first directing the Manager to initiate disciplinary proceedings. Only if, pursuant to such directions, the Manager does not initiate disciplinary proceedings, without justification, the educational authority can initiate disciplinary proceedings against teacher of an aided school by virtue of powers to Section 12A of the Kerala Education Act. The petitioner also relies on the decision of this Court in Yamuna.P.R. v. State of Kerala and others ILR 2007 (4) Kerala 426, in support of that contention. He would further submit that the entire disciplinary proceedings are vitiated for want of compliance with principles of natural justice in so far as no enquiry worth the name as contemplated under Rule 75A of Chapter XIVA of Kerala Education Rules has been conducted and no copy of the enquiry report has been furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner therefore submits that the entire W.P(C) No. 8659 of 2008 -4- proceedings are vitiated by malafides, lack of jurisdiction and violation of principles of natural justice. 3. Counter affidavits have been filed by respondents 3 and 4 supporting the proceedings. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. I had earlier heard the matter on 14.7.2009. After hearing at length, I had directed the learned Government Pleader to make available the files relating to the case including the proceedings of enquiry alleged to be held on 24.11.2007 and the evidence taken on that date. Pursuant thereto, the 4th respondent has filed an affidavit producing along with copies of certain proceedings alleged to be the enquiry proceedings and enquiry report. I am constrained to state that Ext.R4(a), which is stated to be the enquiry proceedings is an apology of an enquiry proceedings. Statements of certain persons have been recorded in one sentence. It does not disclose that the petitioner had been given an opportunity to cross examine those witnesses. Thereafter some statements of the petitioner has also been recorded. The enquiry report produced does not discuss any evidence whatsoever and any of the contentions of the petitioner. W.P(C) No. 8659 of 2008 -5- 6. Apart from the same, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the AEO himself by issuing Ext.P7 charge memo. Prior to issuing that charge memo, no direction was issued to the Manager to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The AEO himself directed the Manager to suspend the petitioner. Every time, the suspension period was extended as directed by the AEO and in Ext.P20 the Manager himself has stated that he has done everything as per directions of the AEO himself and the Manager has no complaint whatsoever against any action of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner that he has not been favoured with a copy of the alleged enquiry report also has not been controverted effectively. For all the above reasons, the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner suffer from the vices lack of jurisdiction and violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the impugned orders are quashed. The petitioner has already retired from service on 31.3.2008. As such no fresh disciplinary proceedings can now be conducted against the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, I direct that all arrears of salary and retirement benefits of the petitioner shall be disbursed to the W.P(C) No. 8659 of 2008 -6- petitioner as if there were no disciplinary proceedings against him. Orders in this regard shall be issued and arrears of salary and retirement benefits due to the petitioner disbursed to him, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs