VELAYUDHAN v. STATE OF KERALA — 1976 DIGILAW 241 (KER)

Judgment :- 1. The challenge in this writ petition is directed against the order Ext. P8 passed by the State Government granting sanction to the 4th respondent, who is the Manager of an aided upper primary school, to impose on the writ petitioner the punishment of removal from service by way of disciplinary action for misconduct. The matter came to be considered by the Government under R.92 of Chapter XIV(A) of the Kerala Education Rules pursuant to a direction issued by this court in the judgment in Writ Appeal No. 300 of 1974. That writ appeal arose out of a writ petition - O. P. No. 2015 of 1973 - filed by the manager (4th respondent herein) challenging the order of the District Educational Officer, Irinjalakuda refusing to grant sanction to impose on the petitioner herein the punishment of removal from service. A learned single judge had dismissed that writ petition and it was against the said decision that the writ appeal was filed by the Manager of the school. The appeal was heard by a Division Bench of which I was a member. It was found by the Division Bench that there was force in the manager's contention that many of the relevant aspects had not received proper consideration at the hands of the District Educational Officer when he passed the impugned order rejecting the Manager's request for sanction to remove the teacher The Division Bench therefore was of the view that the interests of justice required that the request made by the Manager for the grant of sanction to impose the punishment of removal from service on the teacher should be considered de novo in a fair and objective manner by a competent authority. Counsel appearing on both sides submitted before the Division Bench that the parties were agreeable to have the matter decided by the State Government in the exercise of its revisional power under R.92 of Chapter XIV(A) of the Kerala Education Rules. The Government Pleader also stated before the court that in case a direction was issued by this court the State Government was prepared to examine the case in all its aspects in the exercise of its suo mote power of revision and pass final orders on the Manager's request after affording a fair opportunity to the Manager as well as to the teacher to represent their case before the Government. The Division Bench observed in the judgment that, in the circumstances of the case, this court also considered it desirable that the matter should be dealt with by the State Government. Accordingly the judgment of the learned single judge was set aside and the State Government was directed to examine the matter in all its aspects in the exercise of its revisional power under R.92 and to pass final orders within a period not exceeding three months from the date of the said judgment. Ext. P7 is a copy of the said judgment dated 10th January, 1975 rendered by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 300 of 1974. 2. Pursuant to the said direction given by the Division Bench the Government granted a hearing to the Manager of the school and to the delinquent teacher and after considering in detail the arguments advanced and the submissions made on both sides it passed the impugned order granting the Manager's request for sanction to impose on the petitioner the punishment of removal from service. In Ext. P8 the Government have elaborately dealt with all the aspects that are relevant in determining whether the said request of the Manager should be granted. On an examination of the materials available on record the Government came to the conclusion that there was ample evidence to prove charge No.1 levelled against the petitioner, namely the molestation of a girl student in open class, and that the finding arrived at by the Assistant Educational Officer in the enquiry report that the said charge had not been established beyond all doubt and that the accused officer should be given the benefit of doubt, could not be accepted as correct. In the light of the said finding reached by it the Government held that in the interests of maintenance of discipline in the school and also the fair name and prestige of the institution the decision taken by the Manager to inflict the penally of removal from service on the accused teacher was fully justified. The Government accordingly ordered that the Manager's request for sanction to the petitioner's removal from service should be granted. 3. The first ground put forward by the petitioner in support of the challenge against Ext. The Government accordingly ordered that the Manager's request for sanction to the petitioner's removal from service should be granted. 3. The first ground put forward by the petitioner in support of the challenge against Ext. P8 is that the Government had no jurisdiction to take a final decision on the question whether or not to grant the Manager's request for sanction to remove the teacher from service and that what the Government was competent to do under R.92 of Chapter XIV (A) of the Kerala Education Rules in case it was not satisfied about the correctness or propriety of the order passed in the matter by the District Educational Officer was only to set aside the said order of the District Educational Officer and remit the matter to the said officer for fresh consideration. I see no merit at all in this contention. Firstly, the revisional power conferred on me Government under R.92 of Chapter XIV (A) of the Kerala Education Rules is very wide in its ambit and it specifically empowers the Government by clauses (a) and (d) to confirm, modify of set aside the order of the subordinate authority or to pass such other order as the Government may deem fit. It is clear on a reading of clauses (c) and (d) of R.92 that the Government is vested with the discretion to remit the case to the concerned subordinate authority directing such further action or enquiry as may be considered proper in the circumstances of the case or dispose of the matter at the Government level itself by passing such other order in the case as the Government deems fit. It is not therefore obligatory for the Government in all cases where they find that the order passed by the subordinate authority has to be set aside to remit the case to the subordinate authority for passing fresh orders. In appropriate cases, instead of adopting the course of remittal, the Government may itself decide the matter under clause (d). 4. Further, in the present case it is not legally open to the petitioner to put forward the contention that the Government had no jurisdiction to pass final orders on the request of the Manager. In appropriate cases, instead of adopting the course of remittal, the Government may itself decide the matter under clause (d). 4. Further, in the present case it is not legally open to the petitioner to put forward the contention that the Government had no jurisdiction to pass final orders on the request of the Manager. A specific direction that the Government should examine the case in all its aspects and pass final orders on the Manager's request for sanction to impose on the delinquent teacher the punishment of removal from service had been issued by this court in the judgment in Writ Appeal No. 300 of 1974. It was by consent of all the parties to that appeal including the writ petitioner herein that this court directed the State Government to consider and decide the matter. The petitioner cannot now be heard to contend before this court that Government had no jurisdiction to pass final orders on the request of the Manager for sanction to impose on him the punishment of removal from service. This contention is therefore rejected. 5. It is next argued on behalf of the petitioner that there has not been a proper consideration by the Government of all the aspects of the case and more especially of the fact that the enquiry officer had found that charge No.1 framed against the petitioner was not established beyond doubt. I see no substance in this argument also. The Government has taken due note of the fact that the enquiry officer had recorded such a finding in his report. But the said finding was not final and the Manager was entitled to canvass the correctness of the said finding in substantiation of the request made by him for sanction to impose on the teacher the punishment of removal from service. That was why this court had directed the Government to examine the case in all its aspects. It is seen from Ext. P8 that the Government have carefully gone through the records of the enquiry and considered the evidence available in the case in the light of the arguments advanced on behalf of the Manager and the delinquent teacher. That was why this court had directed the Government to examine the case in all its aspects. It is seen from Ext. P8 that the Government have carefully gone through the records of the enquiry and considered the evidence available in the case in the light of the arguments advanced on behalf of the Manager and the delinquent teacher. It was as the result of such a detailed consideration of all the relevant aspects that the Government came to the finding that there is ample evidence to prove charge No.1 levelled against the petitioner, namely the molestation of a girl student. There is absolutely no ground justifying any interference by this court with the said finding of fact. The further conclusion reached by the Government that the seriousness of the said charge proved against the teacher justified the imposition of punishment of removal from service cannot be said to be either arbitrary or perverse. 6. The original petition therefore fails and it is dismissed with costs. Dismissed.