IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2008 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1930 WA.No. 2575 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.24927/2007 Dated 22/08/2007 .................... APPELLANTS: RESPONDENTS NO.1 & 2 ------------------------------- 1. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, (GENERAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.SANDESH RAJA RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & 3RD RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------- 1. STANLY PIGAREZ, S/O.JOSEPH PIGAREZ, PATHISSERY HOUSE, ARIPALAM.P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. CENTRAL BOARD OF ANGLO INDIAN EDUCATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PERUMANOOR P.O., KOCHI. BY SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.A. NO. 2575 OF 2007 ----------------------------------------- Dated 25th March, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. This appeal is filed by respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition, challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge quashing Ext.P2 order of the Director of Public Instruction dated 23.7.2007, suspending the writ petitioner from service, on the ground that he is involved in a bribery case registered by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Ernakulam Unit. The writ petitioner attacked the said order, contending that the disciplinary proceedings in connection with the above incident have been finally closed by the Management as per Ext.P1 proceedings. Therefore, there cannot be any second round of disciplinary action. So, he prayed for quashing Ext.P2. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the suspension is not connected with any disciplinary proceedings. But, it is ordered because he is an accused in a crime registered by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau under the provisions of the Prevention of WA 2575/2007 2 Corruption Act. 2. The learned Single Judge quashed Ext.P2 on the ground that the Government or the authorised officer under Section 12A of the Kerala Education Act can act, if only the Manager was moved and he declined to act on the direction of the competent authority. The learned Government Pleader submitted that for suspending a teacher of an aided school under Section 12A, it is unnecessary to move the Manager first. So, the order of the learned Single Judge is invalid. 3. The above contention of the learned Government Pleader is correct. The said submission is supported by the decision of this Court in Geethakumari v. Director of Public Instruction [1984 K.L.T. 800]. But, we notice that the Government or the authorised officer have no power to suspend a teacher under Section 12A of the K.E.Act or under Rule 67 of Chapter XIV-A of K.E.Rules, on the ground that he is involved in a criminal case. If that be so, Ext.P2 is issued without authority. Thus, on a different ground, we are inclined to uphold the judgment of the learned Single Judge quashing Ext.P2. Of course, if the Government or the officers of the Educational Department have power to interfere with Ext.P1, this judgment WA 2575/2007 3 will not affect the powers of the said authority to proceed in that direction. Subject to the the above observation, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/