Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 432 (KER)

PRASANTH M. P. v. STATE OF KERALA

2016-05-23

V.CHITAMBARESH

body2016
JUDGMENT : Should not the Manager of an aided school be heard while cancelling the permission earlier granted to place a teacher under suspension for a continuous period exceeding 15 days pending disciplinary proceedings ? 2. The Manager of an aided school placed a teacher under suspension contemplating disciplinary action by order dated 14.10.2015 in terms of Rule 67(1)(a) of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (the 'KER' for short). The Manager who could place the teacher under suspension for a continuous period not exceeding 15 days sought permission of the Assistant Educational Officer to continue the same. The Assistant Educational Officer found on preliminary investigation that there are valid grounds for suspension and granted permission to the Manager to continue the suspension as sought. The said order of the Assistant Educational Officer dated 27.10.2015 was in accordance with Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV A KER which was ofcourse open to review by himself or by a higher authority. The teacher later applied for review of the permission so granted by preferring a petition dated 03.01.2016 to the Assistant Educational Officer which was made over to the District Educational Officer. 3. The District Educational Officer by order dated 12.04.2016 has reviewed the order of the Assistant Educational Officer thus revoking the permission and directing the teacher to be reinstated in service. The teacher has filed W.P.(C). No. 9830/2016 seeking reinstatement in service and the Manager has filed W.P.(C). No. 17452/2016 challenging the order directing reinstatement in service after revoking the suspension. The teacher contends that the order of suspension is ill motivated and that the Manager is obliged to reinstate him in service without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings pending. The Manager on the other hand contends that the District Educational Officer has passed the order on review cancelling the permission granted earlier to continue the suspension without notice and behind his back. 4. The misdemeanor alleged against the teacher is that he willfully drove his Motor Cycle and parked the same inside the class room to express resentment over the direction of the Headmistress to park vehicles outside the school compound. There is also an allegation that the teacher later trespassed into the house of the Manager and assaulted him and his wife leading to the registration of a crime under Sections 341, 323, 324, 448 and 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code. There is also an allegation that the teacher later trespassed into the house of the Manager and assaulted him and his wife leading to the registration of a crime under Sections 341, 323, 324, 448 and 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted by either parties that the investigation by the police is complete and the case is pending trial on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Pattambi. 5. I heard Mr. U. Balagangadharan, Advocate on behalf of the teacher, Mr. K.R. Ganesh, Advocate on behalf of the Manager as well as Mr. M.R. Arunkumar Karanavar, Government Pleader. 6. A teacher could be placed under suspension by the Manager for a continuous period not exceeding 15 days without the previous sanction of the Educational Officer as per the proviso to Rule 67(7) of Chapter XIV A KER. The Educational Officer can grant permission to the Manager to place the teacher under suspension for a period beyond 15 days if necessary if it is found on investigation that there are valid grounds. This is discernible from Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV A KER and the Educational Officer is obliged to pass orders either way within 15 days of the period of suspension. It is open to the Educational Officer to either permit the Manager to place the teacher under suspension beyond 15 days or refuse permission and direct the teacher to be reinstated in service. The order so passed by the Assistant Educational Officer in the instant case is open to review either suo motu or on motion by aggrieved as explicit from Rule 67(8A) of Chapter XIV A KER. 7. Rule 67(8A) of Chapter XIV A KER is extracted hereunder: R.67(8A)- Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (8) the authority who permitted the suspension beyond 15 days or any higher authority may at any time during the pendency of such suspension, review such permission and if such authority is satisfied that the teacher under suspension has to be reinstated in service for reasons to be recorded in writing cancel the permission already ordered under sub-rule (8) and direct the Manager to reinstate the teacher in service. On such order, the Manager shall reinstate the teacher forthwith failing which the provisions in sub-rule (8) will apply in such case. On such order, the Manager shall reinstate the teacher forthwith failing which the provisions in sub-rule (8) will apply in such case. Thus the authority who permitted the suspension beyond 15 days or any higher authority may at any time during the pendency of such suspension review such permission granted under Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV A KER. The original authority or the higher authority if satisfied that the teacher under suspension has to be reinstated in service for reasons to be recorded in writing can cancel the permission. The authority can also direct the Manager to reinstate the teacher in service pending disciplinary proceedings failing which the consequences under Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV A KER will follow. One of the consequences of refusing reinstatement is that the pay and allowances to the teacher would be disbursed as if he is on duty and the amount realised from the Manager. 8. The Assistant Educational Officer in the instant case made over the petition dated 03.01.2016 put in by the teacher for review under Rule 67(8A) of Chapter XIV A KER to the District Educational Officer. The District Educational Officer being a higher authority has undoubtedly the jurisdiction under Rule 67(8A) of Chapter XIV A KER to review the permission granted under Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV A KER. But the action of the District Educational Officer in passing the order on review (produced as Ext.P9 in W.P.(C). No. 17452/2016) is questioned by the Manager of the aided school. The grounds of attack are that the Manager was not put on notice or heard in the exercise and that irrelevant reasons have been stated by the District Educational Officer while cancelling permission. 9. The order of the District Educational Officer cancelling the permission earlier granted to continue the period of suspension beyond 15 days by the Assistant Educational Officer has to fall to the ground for two reasons. Firstly, the Manager who was granted permission to continue the period of suspension of the teacher exceeding 15 days had every right to be heard before the permission was cancelled. The Manager after being accorded with permission under Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV A KER has a vested right to continue the period of suspension of the teacher exceeding 15 days. The Manager after being accorded with permission under Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV A KER has a vested right to continue the period of suspension of the teacher exceeding 15 days. Such a vested right could be taken away by cancelling the permission only after due notice to the Manager in an exercise under Rule 67(8A) of Chapter XIV A KER. It was a bolt from the blue for the Manager when the teacher flashed the order of the District Educational Officer directing his reinstatement in service after cancelling the permission granted by the Assistant Educational Officer. The Manager was deprived of an opportunity to place his version before the authority exercising the power of review as regards the necessity to continue the period of suspension. The order of the District Educational Officer cancelling the permission has been passed behind the back of the Manager and is grossly violative of the principles of natural justice. 10. Secondly, the criminal case registered against the teacher and pending on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Pattambi has no bearing on the continuation of the suspension. The criminal case and the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Manager operate in different spheres and the pendency of one will not have any impact on the other. The memo of charges has already been served by the Manager to which the teacher has filed his explanation and it is for the Assistant Educational Officer to culminate the proceedings. The District Educational Officer has egregiously erred in directing the reinstatement of the teacher in service for the mere reason that the investigation by the police in the criminal case is over. The order of the District Educational Officer cancelling the permission to continue the suspension of the teacher beyond 15 days is vitiated by arbitrariness and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. Ext.P9 order in W.P.(C). No. 17452/2016 is hereby quashed and the District Educational Officer is directed to pass orders afresh on the petition dated 03.01.2016 put in by the teacher after due notice to all parties. The same shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the disciplinary proceedings cannot also linger on for months together. The same shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the disciplinary proceedings cannot also linger on for months together. More than seven months have elapsed since the teacher was placed under suspension and more than six months have elapsed since the memo of charges was served and the explanation submitted. It is reported that the Manager has already forwarded the records of the case to the Assistant Educational Officer for a formal enquiry in terms of Rule 75 of Chapter XIV A KER. I direct the Assistant Educational Officer to expedite the disciplinary proceedings and take the same to a logical end within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petitions are disposed of as above. No costs.