Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1166 (KER)

Anija Anandan W/o. Vinayan v. State of Kerala

2025-05-13

N.NAGARESH

body2025
JUDGMENT : N.NAGARESH, J. W.P.(C) Nos.16212/2022 and 32298/2024 have been filed by a UPST retired from services of the Pattiyamma AUP School, Karivelloor, Kannur. W.P.(C) No.37306/2022 has been filed by the Manager of the School. The parties and Exhibits in these writ petitions are referred to as they are described/produced in W.P.(C) No.16212/2022, for convenience. 2. In W.P.(C) No.16212/2022, the petitioner- Teacher stated that she has been working as UPST in the School managed by the 5 th respondent since 24.09.2003. The daughter of the petitioner and her husband are working in Germany. In order to take care of grandchildren, the petitioner applied for leave from 01.06.2022 to 17.08.2022 (78 days). The 4 th respondent-Headmaster refused to sanction leave holding that the petitioner has not produced Certificate from the 5 th respondent-Manager regarding pendency of Disciplinary Proceedings. 3. The petitioner states that as per Exts.P2 and P3 orders, the Government has recognised the rights of the employees to visit their children abroad for which leave can be sanctioned upto six months. Sanction of Government is necessary only if the leave period is above four months. Refusal to grant 78 days leave applied for by the petitioner, for non-production of Certificate regarding pendency of disciplinary proceedings is illegal, unwarranted and unjustified, contends the petitioner. 4. The petitioner submits that the petitioner was earlier imposed with a punishment of barring one increment with cumulative effect. But, the 3 rd respondent- AEO has set aside that order of punishment. A revision petition filed by the Manager is pending before the Government, in this regard. The 3 rd respondent-AEO has now filed a Statement informing that the Government, as per Order dated 01.09.2022, has refused to interfere with the order of the AEO, but has ordered that if such lapses are repeated, strict disciplinary action needs to be taken against the petitioner. 5. W.P.(C) No.37306/2022 has been filed by the 5 th respondent-Manager seeking to quash Ext.P11 order whereby the AEO has cancelled the order dated 04.09.2020 of the Manager imposing penalty of barring of one increment of the petitioner with cumulative effect, for the misconduct of going abroad during 2019-2020 without informing the Manager. The Government, by Ext.P14, upheld the order of the AEO and hence Ext.P14 order is also under challenge. 6. The Government, by Ext.P14, upheld the order of the AEO and hence Ext.P14 order is also under challenge. 6. The 5 th respondent states that a disciplinary proceeding was conducted against the petitioner earlier for his misconduct, complying with the principles of natural justice. The disciplinary proceeding was completed in consultation with the Headmaster of the School and records were sent to the AEO on the very next day itself for ratification. Hence, Exts.P11 and P14 orders quashing the punishment imposed on the petitioner are unsustainable. 7. I have considered the said argument with reference to the pleadings and materials available. Rule 70 Chapter XIVA KER mandates that the authority which may impose the penalty of withholding increments or promotion or reduction to lower stage in a time scale, shall be the Manager who shall consult the Headmaster / Headmistress / Vice Principal before imposing the penalty and shall also get his action ratified by the educational officer. The educational authority has found that the procedure under Rule 70 was not followed by the 5 th respondent-Manager while imposing penalty on the petitioner. 8. The 5 th respondent would submit that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in consultation with the Headmaster and all the records were forwarded to the AEO. The records do not show that the action of the Manager was ratified by the Educational Officer on conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in Exts.P11 or P14 orders. 9. During the pendency of W.P.(C) Nos.16212 and 37306 of 2022, the petitioner retired from service on superannuation on 31.05.2024. However, the petitioner was not sanctioned DCRG and commuted value of pension, due to the non-finalisation of the challenge regarding the imposition of penalty. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.32298/2024 seeking to direct the respondents to sanction DCRG and commuted value of pension to the petitioner. 10. The prayer in W.P.(C) No.16212/2022 filed by the petitioner is to direct the 4 th respondent to reconsider Ext.P1 application and grant leave to the petitioner without insisting for production of Certificate of Pendency of Disciplinary Proceedings. The application dated 03.05.2022 for leave submitted by the petitioner stands refused by the Headmaster as per communication dated 12.05.2022 on the ground that the petitioner has not produced Certificate from the Manager that no disciplinary proceedings pending are against the petitioner. 11. The application dated 03.05.2022 for leave submitted by the petitioner stands refused by the Headmaster as per communication dated 12.05.2022 on the ground that the petitioner has not produced Certificate from the Manager that no disciplinary proceedings pending are against the petitioner. 11. Refusal of the Headmaster to grant leave on that ground is unsustainable. Firstly, there is no requirement under the Rules to produce such a Certificate. Secondly, Form No.13 provided under Part I KSR also does not require providing such information. Thirdly, the petitioner had been working under the 5 th respondent's School since the year 2003 and the Manager and the Headmaster should indeed have all the information relating to pendency or otherwise of any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. 12. The petitioner stands retired on superannuation after rendering nearly 21 years of service. The punishment imposed on the petitioner earlier stands cancelled by the Educational Officer, which order is upheld by the Government. As regards the issue of leave for the period from 01.06.2022 to 17.08.2022, the leave has been declined by the Headmaster for the sole reason that no Certificate on Disciplinary Proceedings has been produced by the petitioner, which reason is found to be unsustainable. In the circumstances, I am of the view that instead of remitting the matter back for reconsideration of leave application, the writ petitions can be disposed of with appropriate directions. 13. The writ petitions are therefore disposed of as ordered hereunder: (1) W.P.(C) No.16212/2022 is disposed of directing respondents 4 and 5 to sanction and grant leave as applied for by the petitioner, without insisting for production of any Certificate on Disciplinary Proceedings. (2) W.P.(C) No.37306/2022 is dismissed. (3) W.P.(C) No.32298/2024 is disposed of directing the respondents to sanction and disburse DCRG and commuted value of pension to the petitioner, if the petitioner satisfies all other parameters. The prayer for interest on DCRG and commuted value of pension for delayed payment is declined, in the facts and circumstances of the case.