IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2010 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 30376 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE MANAGER, ST.THOMAS HIGH SCHOOL, PUNNAKODE. BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY SRI.POOVAMULLE PARAMBIL ABDULKAREEM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOTTARAKKARA. 2. THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA. 3. THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, (HEADMASTER), ST.THOMAS HIGH SCHOOL, PUNNAKODE. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.30376 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT The questions involved in this Writ Petition are the following : (i) Whether the District Educational Officer has jurisdiction to exercise the power under Rule 7 of Chapter III of the Kerala Education Rules ? (ii) Whether a punishment of censure could be imposed on a Manager invoking jurisdiction under Rule 7 of Chapter III of the Kerala Education Rules ? (iii) Whether the penalty of censure could be imposed on a Manager by exercising jurisdiction under Rule 65 of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules ? (iv) Whether a punishment of censure could be imposed on the Manager without affording an opportunity of being heard ? WPC No.30376/2010 2 2. The petitioner is the Manager of the St.Thomas High School, Punnakkode. One Shibu Samuel filed an application to the Headmaster of St.Thomas High School, he being the Public Information Officer under the provisions of the Right to Information Act. It would appear that some of the informations sought for could not be given by the Public Information Officer (Headmaster). The Headmaster requested the Manager to give the necessary information. The Manager replied and provided the available information according to him. Exhibit P8 application dated 14.10.2009 was submitted by Shibu Samuel to the Public Information Officer, Office of the District Educational Officer, Kottarakara requesting to furnish certain information under the Right to Information Act. The District Educational Officer directed the Headmaster of the school and the Manager to furnish the information. The Headmaster submitted certain information on 28.1.2010. As per Exhibit P1 dated 19.2.2010, the District Educational Officer informed the Headmaster as well as the Manager that the information supplied was not satisfactory. The District Educational Officer directed the Manager and the Headmaster to give correct answers for WPC No.30376/2010 3 question Nos.2 and 3. It would appear that on 22.2.2010, as per Exhibit P2, the Manager informed the District Educational Officer that he had directed the Headmaster to give the information. On 20.2.2010, the Headmaster sent Exhibit P3 letter to the Manager requesting him to furnish the necessary details. On 22.2.2010, as per Exhibit P4, the Manager sent reply to the Headmaster giving certain details. 3. The District Educational Officer, who is also the appellate authority, under the Right to Information Act, passed Exhibit P7 order dated 3.6.2010 imposing a penalty of censure on the Manager as well as the Headmaster, exercising the power under Rule 7(2) of Chapter III and Rule 65 of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules and under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act. No notice was issued by the District Educational Officer to the Manager before passing Exhibit P7 order. This Writ Petition is filed by the Manager to quash Exhibit P7 order. 4. Rule 7 of Chapter III KER provides for taking action WPC No.30376/2010 4 against the Manager or educational agency in the event of mismanagement etc. Sub Rule I of Rule 7 reads as follows : “(1) In the event of mismanagement, malpractice, corruption or maladministration, gross negligence of duty, or disobedience of Departmental instruction on the part of the Manager [or denial of appointment to a qualified thrown out teacher who has a rightful claim for reappointment by virtue of his/her holding the post earlier or denial of promotion to a teacher who is rightful claimant for promotion by the Manager] [or conviction of the Manager for an offence involving moral turpitude] it shall be open to the Director, after giving the Manager a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken and after due enquiry, to declare him unfit to hold the office of Manager in the school or in any other aided school and to require the educational Agency to appoint a suitable person as Manager.” Action proposed to be taken under Rule 7 is to declare the WPC No.30376/2010 5 Manager unfit to hold the office of the Manager and to require the educational agency to appoint a suitable person as the Manager. A punishment of censure is outside the scope of Rule 7 of Chapter III. The power under Rule 7 of Chapter III can be exercised only by the Director, going by the Rule. As per G.O. (P) No.52/80 G.Edn. dated 7.5.1980, the powers of the Director under Rule 7 are delegated to the Deputy Director of Education as well. The District Educational Officer is not an authority under Rule 7 of Chapter III. Therefore, the District Educational Officer was not justified in invoking the power under Rule 7 of Chapter III of Kerala Education Rules. Rule 7 provides for a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken. The District Educational Officer has not afforded an opportunity of being heard to the Manager. On that ground also, it is to be held that Exhibit P7 order, to that extent, is unsustainable. 5. The next question to be considered is whether a punishment of censure could be imposed on the Manager under Rule 65 of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules. Rule 65 WPC No.30376/2010 6 of Chapter XIVA provides that the penalties mentioned therein may be imposed upon teachers of aided schools. One of the penalties in Rule 65 is censure. Rule 65 does not indicate that the penalty can be imposed under that Rule on the Manager. The jurisdiction under Rule 65 could not be exercised to impose a penalty on the Manager. Therefore, Exhibit P7 order imposing the penalty on the Manager, exercising jurisdiction under Rule 65 of Chapter XIV A, is unsustainable. 6. Note 2 under Rule 65 of Chapter XIV A provides that no punishment shall be imposed without giving the person affected an opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken. In the present case, the DEO has not given any such opportunity to the Manager. Therefore, Exhibit P7, to that extent also, is unsustainable. 7. The next question to be considered is whether Exhibit P7 is valid under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act. The penalty to be imposed under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act is Rs.250/- for each day till the information is WPC No.30376/2010 7 furnished. However, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed 25,000/- rupees. The authority under Section 20, exercising powers under Sub Section (2) of Section 20 would request for disciplinary action under the service rules. The proviso to Sub Section (1) of Section 20 mandates that a reasonable opportunity of being heard should be given to the person concerned before any penalty imposed on him. Since the penalty contemplated under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act was not imposed and since no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner, Exhibit P7 order, to the extent to which the District Educational Officer exercised the power under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, is bad. For the aforesaid reasons, Exhibit P7 is quashed. The District Educational Officer shall dispose of the matter afresh, confining the exercise of his power to Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Since the District Educational Officer can exercise jurisdiction under Rule 65 of Chapter XIV A against the Headmaster, it is made clear that as against the Headmaster, the District Educational Officer would be competent to proceed WPC No.30376/2010 8 under that Rule as well. Since Exhibit P7 is quashed on the ground that no opportunity of being heard was afforded to any of the parties, the District Educational Officer shall issue notice to the Manager and the Headmaster before passing any order against them. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl