ANILA K HST (ENGLISH) v STATE OF KERALA, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM, DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR, MANAGER, MMM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KUTTAYI, AND MEENAKUMARI T.R.

**WP(C) NO. 40799 OF 2022** **1** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V WEDNESDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 14TH POUSHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 40799 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER/S:** ANILA K HST (ENGLISH), MMM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KUTTAYI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, MALAPPURAM-676562, RESIDING AT ANUSREE, VANCHERI NAGAR, THEKKEMMURI P.O., TIRUR, MALAPPURAM-676105. BY ADVS. M.A.FAYAZ M.VISHNUPRIYA C.B.ABHINAVA ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM, O/O. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM -676519. 3 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR, O/O. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR, TIRUR-676101. 4 MANAGER, MMM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KUTTAYI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, MALAPPURAM-676562 **WP(C) NO. 40799 OF 2022 2** 5 MEENAKUMARI T.R., HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER (MATHEMATICS), MMM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KUTTAYI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, MALAPPURAM-676562. SMT. NISHA BOSE, SR. GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 40799 OF 2022** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner herein is working as High School Teacher (English) at Moulana Muhammed Kutty Memorial Higher Secondary School, Kuttayi, an aided school under the management of the 4th respondent. The 5th respondent is also working as HST (Mathematics) in the said school. 2. Contending that the 5th respondent raised false allegations against the petitioner and spread calumny, Ext.P1 complaint was lodged before the Manager seeking initiation of action. After getting a report from the Headmaster, an explanation was sought from the 5th respondent, to which she responded by denying the allegations. 3. The Manager came to the prima facie conclusion that the action of the 5th respondent was unbecoming of a teacher and proceeded to pass Ext.P3 order of suspension. The request made by the Manager before the 3rd respondent to extend the period of suspension beyond the period of 15 days was however rejected after hearing all concerned. Directions were **WP(C) NO. 40799 OF 2022** **4** issued to reinstate the 5th respondent back in service by Ext.P5 order dated 18.04.2022. The said order was challenged by the Manager by preferring a revision petition before the 1st respondent. 4. Pursuant to orders passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.23399 of 2022, the 1st respondent considered the revision petition and confirmed the order passed by the DEO. In compliance with the directions issued by this Court, Ext.P7 order has been issued by the 1st respondent confirming the order passed by the 3rd respondent. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition. 5. Sri. M.A. Fayaz, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner, being the de facto complainant, before passing Ext.P7 order, an opportunity of being heard ought to have been granted to her. 6. The learned Government Pleader would point out that it was challenging the order issued by the DEO refusing to extend the period of suspension beyond the period of 15 days that the Manager had preferred the **WP(C) NO. 40799 OF 2022** **5** revision petition before the 1st respondent. It is pointed out that the Manager had later approached this Court, and it was pursuant to the directions issued by this Court that the matter was heard by the 1st respondent. In the judgment so rendered by this Court, there was no direction to hear the petitioner herein. Referring to Ext.P7, it is pointed out that the entire matter was considered by the 1st respondent, and it was after taking note of the fact that the allegations are such that it could have been settled in the school itself and that continued extension of suspension in so far as the 5th respondent is not warranted that Ext.P7 order was issued. 7. I have considered the submissions advanced by both sides and have gone through the materials. 8. I find that it was the Manager who had preferred a revision petition before the 1st respondent challenging the order passed by the DEO. The 1st respondent, in terms of the directions issued by this Court, heard the delinquent teacher as well as the Manager. I find that all relevant aspects were considered by the 1st respondent, and it was concluded that the **WP(C) NO. 40799 OF 2022** **6** continuance of the period of suspension of the 5th respondent was not warranted, and the order passed by the DEO was valid and proper. 9. The specific contention of the petitioner is that as she was not heard before ordering the revision petition, the principles of natural justice have been violated. As stated above, the revision petition was filed by the Manager and it is in tune with the directions issued by this Court that the 1st respondent had heard the matter and had confirmed the order passed by the DEO. Of course, it cannot be disputed that the principles of natural justice have been held to be sacrosanct and have been placed at a high pedestal in the adjudication proceedings, which are judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative. The question as to which of the principles of natural justice or which of the facets of it is applicable would depend on the nature of the litigation and the Statute under which the adjudication is undertaken. It is settled by now that every departure from the principles of natural justice may not result in a miscarriage of justice unless prejudice is caused or demonstrated (useless formality theory). The question as to what extent the **WP(C) NO. 40799 OF 2022** **7** principles of natural justice need to be stretched in a given case has to be considered with an element of flexibility. As held by the Supreme Court in Canara Bank v. Debasis Das[1] , the concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change, and what particular rule of natural justice should be implied and what its context should be in a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the framework of the Statute under which the enquiry is held. In the facts and circumstances and taking note of the nature of the proceeding, I do not think that any serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner and therefore, no interference is warranted. This writ petition will stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE** NS > 1 [2003 (4) SCC 557], **WP(C) NO. 40799 OF 2022 8** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40799/2022** PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 21.3.2022. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 26.3.2022. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.383/MGR/2022 DATED 6.4.2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF HEARING (B1/2293/2022) DATED 13.4.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B1/2293/2022 DATED 18.4.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 14.6.2022. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.7550/2022/G.EDN. DATED 2.12.2022. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF COVERING LETTER ISSUED BY THE HM DATED 5.7.2022. Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 3.12.2022. RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL