High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-06-16The writ petition is disposed of.

Aji Skaria v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No.19510 of 2022

Neutral Citation::null

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2022-06-16
Court Decision / Holding: Ext. P14 set aside; the First Respondent directed to reconsider Ext. P13 revision and pass fresh orders with due notice to the petitioner and 5th respondent, to be completed within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of.
Final Disposition: The writ petition is disposed of.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

AJI SKARIA, S/O AVIRA SKARIA

Respondents

The State of Kerala
The Director of General Education
The Deputy Director of Education
The Assistant Educational Officer
The Manager, St.Peter's Upper Primary School, Kozhipilly, Karamala P.O., Ernakulam District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• T. Madhu
• C.R. Saradamani
• Shahid Azeez
• Reshma Santhosh
• Renjish S. Menon

Counsels for Respondents

• SMT Nisha Bose Sr, Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition by Aji Skaria, then Headmaster of St. Peter's Upper Primary School, Kozhippilly, challenges the disciplinary actions taken against him for alleged misconduct. The sequence began with a complaint by the President of the Parents and Teachers Association, leading to an Enquiry Report (Ext. P4) and a censure order (Ext. P5) by the Fourth Respondent. Subsequently, the Third Respondent issued a charge memo based on the same allegations, and after the petitioner submitted Ext. P8, a punishment was imposed by Ext. P10: barring increments with cumulative effect for one year. The petitioner challenged Ext. P10 and the cryptic Ext. P14, arguing that the proceedings violated natural justice and the requirement of reasoned, speaking orders. The petitioner pursued remedies through Ext. P11 (appeal before the Second Respondent), Ext. P12 (order), and Ext. P13 (revision before the First Respondent), culminating in Ext. P14, which was argued to be non-speaking. The court anchors its reasoning in Supreme Court authorities stressing that reasons are the soul of the law and that quasi-judicial decisions must be reasoned and compliant with natural justice (Rama Varma Bharathan Thampuran v. State of Kerala; Gurdial Singh Fiji v. State of Punjab; H.H. Shri Swamiji of Shri Amar Mutt v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Dept). Ultimately, Ext. P14 is set aside, and the court directs the First Respondent to re-examine Ext. P13 revision and pass fresh orders with due notice within two months, disposed of accordingly.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Reasons are the links between the materials on which conclusions are based and the actual conclusions; reason is the soul of law
Recording of reasons is an essential attribute of quasi-judicial functioning
Adherence to natural justice in administrative and quasi-judicial actions

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the Departmental proceedings culminated in Ext. P10 punitive order, but the revisional order at Ext. P14 is cryptic and non-speaking, failing to address the contentions raised and violating the principles of natural justice. The earlier censure (Ext. P5) and subsequent charge memo (Ext. P7) based on similar allegations, followed by extant appeals and revisions, indicate a lack of reasoned adjudication. The petitioner seeks quashing of Ext. P10 and Ext. P14 and directions for a meaningful, reasoned reconsideration of the revision petition with due notice and a prompt final decision.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that the disciplinary process was conducted in accordance with the applicable rules and that Ext. P14 purportedly reflects a decision after considering the lower authorities. They contend that the petitioner's revision and appeal were within the proper channels, and the authorities have the discretion to pass speaking orders upon a review of the materials. The respondents justify the earlier actions as part of a legitimate disciplinary regime and emphasize adherence to due process, proposing that the matter be resolved by reexamination of the revision petition with due notice.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Rama Varma Bharathan Thampuran v. State of Kerala	AIR 1979 SC 1918	Positive	Cited to support that reasons are essential and natural justice governs quasi-judicial decisions.
Gurdial Singh Fiji v. State of Punjab	(1979) 2 SCC 368	Positive	Used to reinforce the requirement of reasoned orders and natural justice.
H.H. Shri Swamiji of Shri Amar Mutt v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Dept	AIR 1980 SC 1	Positive	Cited for principles on the necessity of reasons and proper quasi-judicial procedure.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Aji Skaria v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V THURSDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 26TH JYAISHTA, 1944`** ## **`WP(C) NO. 19510 OF 2022`** ``` PETITIONER: ``` ``` AJI SKARIA S/O AVIRA SKARIA, AGED 53 YEARS, HEADMASTER, ST.PETER'S UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, KOZHIPPILLY, KARAMALA P.O, KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT – 686 662, RESIDING AT VANDMBRA PUTHENPURA HOUSE, MARUTHI JUNCTION, KOOTHATTUKULAM P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT – 686 662 ``` ``` BY ADVS. T.MADHU C.R.SARADAMANI SHAHID AZEEZ RESHMA SANTHOSH RENJISH S. MENON ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001 2THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, VAZHUTHACAUD P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 014 3THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD P.O, KOCHI – 682 030 4THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOOTHAKKUKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT – 686 662 ``` W.P.(C) No.19510 of 2022 2 ``` 5THE MANAGER, ST.PETER'S UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, KOZHIPILLY, KARAMALA P.O, KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT – 686 662 ``` ``` SMT NISHA BOSE SR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION ON16.06.2022,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No.19510 of 2022 3 ## **JUDGMENT** Under challenge in this writ petition is Ext.P10 order arrived at by the 3rd respondent at the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner which stands confirmed by Ext.P14 order passed by the 1st respondent. ## 2. Brief facts are as under: The petitioner states that while he was working as Headmaster at the St.Peter’s Upper Primary School, Kozhippilly, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him based on a complaint filed by the President of the Parents and Teachers Association. An enquiry was initiated and on conclusion of the same, Ext.P4 enquiry report was submitted by the AEO. Based on Ext.P4, Ext.P5 order of censure was imposed against the petitioner. 3. The petitioner asserts that thereafter, the 3rd respondent issued a charge memo based on the very same allegations, and though the petitioner had submitted Ext.P8 explanation, the matter was proceeded with and by Ext.P10 proceedings dated 30.07.2020, the 3rd respondent imposed the punishment of barring increment with cumulative effect for a period of W.P.(C) No.19510 of 2022 4 one year. Being aggrieved by Ext.P10 proceedings, the petitioner is stated to have preferred Ext.P11 appeal before the 2nd respondent. He contends that without appreciating the nature of contentions, Ext.P12 order was passed by the 2nd respondent. Being aggrieved by Ext.P12, the petitioner is stated to have preferred Ext.P13 revision petition before the 1st respondent. However, the same was also rejected by Ext.P14 order. 4. According to the petitioner, Ext.P14 is a one-line order which is non-speaking and cryptic. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash Ext.P10 and P14 and for further directions. 5. I have heard Sri. T. Madhu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government pleader. 6. The Apex Court has time and again reiterated that reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. It has also been observed that reason is the soul of law and when the reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law. It has been held that one of the attributes of quasi-judicial functioning is the recording of reasons in support of decisions taken and the other requirement is the adherence to the principles of natural justice. (see **Rama Varma Bharathan Thampuran v. State of Kerala** [AIR 1979 SC 1918], **Gurdial** W.P.(C) No.19510 of 2022 5 **Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab** [(1979) 2 SCC 368] and in **H.H.Shri. Swamiji of Shri. Amar Mutt v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Dept** ., [AIR 1980 SC 1]. In the case on hand, the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by Ext.P14 order which reads thus: “ �ചന:- 1.) താ��െട 14/12/2021 തീയതിയിെല റിവിഷൻ ഹർജി. 2)െപാ�വിദ�ാഭ�ാസ ഡയറ��െട(ജനറൽ & വിജിലൻസ്) 26/04/2022 തീയതിയിെല വി.ബി1/427537/2022/ഡി.ജി.ഇ ന�ർ റിേ�ാർ�്, �ചനയിേല�്താ��െട��ണി��. വിദ�ാഭ�ാസഅധി�തർ നട�ിയ അേന�ഷണ�ളിൽ താ�ൾ ��തരമായി �മേ��ക�ം �ത�വിേലാപ��ം വീ�ക�ം വ��ിയി��തായികെ��ിയി�ളളതിനാൽ താ��െട�ചന (1) റിവിഷൻ ഹർജിയിെല ആവശ�ം പരിഗണി�ാൻ നിർവാഹമില എ� വിവരം അറിയി�ു�ു. “ 7. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel, none of the contentions raised by the petitioner in the revision petition was taken note of by the 1st respondent while passing the said order. All that is stated is that the lower authorities have arrived at certain conclusions and in that view of the matter, the Government is not in a position to consider the request made by the petitioner in the revision petition. I have no doubt in my mind that Ext.P14 order cannot be sustained under law. In view of the discussion above, Ext.P14 order will stand set aside. W.P.(C) No.19510 of 2022 6 There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider Ext.P13 revision and pass fresh orders with due notice to the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent and take a decision, expeditiously, in any event, within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE** IAP W.P.(C) No.19510 of 2022 7 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19510/2022`** ``` PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ``` ``` Exhibit P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 06/08/2018 FILED BY SRI. JOBY, THE PRESIDENT OF THE PARENT TEACHERS ASSOCIATION FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2017-2018. ``` - `Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 24/07/2018 FILED BY SMT.SHEEJA JOSE BEFORE THE FOURTH RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 09/10/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FOURTH RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 05/09/2018 PREPARED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT.` ``` Exhibit P5THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 30/10/2018 OF THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. ``` - `Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE DATED 18/10/2019 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DATED 18/10/2019 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 11/11/2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AS AGAINST EXHIBIT P7 MEMO OF CHARGES.` ``` Exhibit P9THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 14/01/2020 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. ``` W.P.(C) No.19510 of 2022 8 - `Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 30/07/2020 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 19/08/2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT AS AGAINST THE EXHIBIT P10 ORDER OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/11/2021 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 14/12/2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.` ``` Exhibit P14THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/05/2022 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. ``` ``` RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS : NIL ```