Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 511 (KER)

Shajan George S/o v. c. George VS State Of Kerala

2025-03-07

N.NAGARESH

body2025
JUDGMENT : N.NAGARESH, J. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5794/2025 is the Principal of KM HSS, Kuttoor North, AR Nagar, Malappuram District. The petitioner is before this Court seeking to declare that he is entitled to get reinstatement in service as there is no sanction for continued suspension beyond the period of 15 days. 2. W.P.(C) No.8527/2025 has been filed by the 4 th respondent-Manager in W.P.(C) No.5794/2025 seeking to direct respondents 1 to 3 to issue order, granting permission to the Manager to extend the period of suspension of the petitioner. The parties and exhibits are referred to in this judgment as they are arrayed in / marked in W.P.(C) No.5794/2025, for conveniece. 3. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5794/2025 submits that while working as HSST in the School, he was promoted as Principal on 03.06.2024. The petitioner submits that to take vengeance on the petitioner, the new Manager played a trick and the petitioner was suspended from service pending enquiry, as per Ext.P4 order dated 20.01.2025. The suspension has not been approved by any of the Educational Authorities. No extension was granted for enlargement of the time of suspension. However, the petitioner is continued to be put under suspension without having any disciplinary proceedings. The continued suspension of the petitioner is highly arbitrary and illegal. In the facts of the case, this Court has to interfere in the matter and pass appropriate orders directing reinstatement, contends the petitioner. 4. The 4 th respondent-Manager in W.P.(C) No.8527/2025 submitted that after assuming the post of Principal, a number of complaints were received from the Student Community, the Parent Teacher Association as well as from the teaching staff, against the petitioner. The complaints alleged that the petitioner is not attending the classes regularly or taking classes properly. Therefore, taking into account the seriousness of the allegations and after conducting a preliminary enquiry, the petitioner was placed under suspension, as per order dated 20.01.2025. 5. The 4 th respondent-Manager submitted that the suspension of the petitioner is pending enquiry. The matter was communicated to the Educational Authority. However, the 3 rd respondent-Regional Deputy Director of Higher Secondary Education did not enlarge the suspension period nor have taken any steps for conducting enquiry, on the ground that the power of the RDD for enlargement of period of suspension is doubtful. The matter was communicated to the Educational Authority. However, the 3 rd respondent-Regional Deputy Director of Higher Secondary Education did not enlarge the suspension period nor have taken any steps for conducting enquiry, on the ground that the power of the RDD for enlargement of period of suspension is doubtful. Unless the Government gives necessary clarification, it would not be possible for the 3 rd respondent to extend the period of suspension. 6. The 4 th respondent-Manager would submit that the conduct of the petitioner in not taking classes, has adversely affected the School. Exts.P1 and P2 in W.P.(C) No.8527/2025 are the complaints preferred by the students in the School, which indicate that the petitioner is not satisfied in taking classes to the students. If the petitioner is reinstated in service without completing the enquiry, it would cause difficulties to the students and the reputation of the School as a whole. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the 4 th respondent-Manager. I have also heard the learned Government Pleader representing the official respondents. 8. Ext.P1 in W.P.(C) No.8527/2025 would indicate that the students of the 12 th Standard studying in the School have made a complaint that the petitioner has not started taking classes even till 27.08.2024. Ext.P2 would indicate that the classes were not taken for Plus One Humanities Batch students also. It is in such circumstances that the petitioner was put under suspension. 9. From the pleadings in W.P.(C) No.8527/2025, it is evident that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5794/2025 has served Ext.P11 charge sheet. Rule 67 of Chapter XIVA of KER deals with suspension of staff in the Aided Schools. Sub-rule (8) of Rule 67 reads as follows: (8) Where the orders of suspension is made by the manager he shall on the same day report the matter together with reasons for the suspension to the Educational Officer and where the suspension is in respect of Headmaster of Secondary school and Training school such reports shall be sent to the Deputy Director (Education) also in addition to the Educational Officer. The Deputy Director (Education) if the suspension is in respect of Headmaster of a Secondary school or Training School and the Educational Officer in other cases shall thereupon make a preliminary investigation into the grounds of suspension. The Deputy Director (Education) if the suspension is in respect of Headmaster of a Secondary school or Training School and the Educational Officer in other cases shall thereupon make a preliminary investigation into the grounds of suspension. If on such investigations the authority is satisfied that there was no valid ground for the suspension he may direct the manager to reinstate the teacher with effect from the date of suspension and thereupon the teacher shall forthwith be reinstated by the manager. If the teacher is not actually reinstated the teacher shall be deemed to have been on duty. It shall then be open to the Department to disburse the pay and allowances to the teacher as if he were not suspended and recover the amount so disbursed from the manager. If on such investigation it is found that there are valid grounds for such suspension, permission may be given to the manger to place the teacher under suspension beyond 15 days if necessary. The authority mentioned above shall pass orders permitting the suspension or otherwise within said 15 days] It is evident from Sub-rule (8) that the authority competent to grant extension of suspension is the authority empowered by the Government. The contention of the 3 rd respondent is that there is no clarity in the matter of the authority of RDD. 10. Considering the facts of the case and considering the fact that the petitioner has been under suspension since 20.01.2025, I am of the considered view that a decision shall be taken on extension of suspension of the petitioner forthwith and disciplinary proceedings shall be concluded, if warranted, expeditiously. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of directing the 3 rd respondent to convene a meeting involving the petitioner and the 4 th respondent-Manager, within a period of one week to take decision on extension of suspension and enquiry proceedings. Orders in the matter of suspension shall be passed within a period of 10 days. If warranted, the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner shall be concluded as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of three months.