High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-11-01Writ petition disposed of with directions as st...

Jeril P. Vincent v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 16863 of 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2021-11-01
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of with directions: the Manager shall seek prior sanction from the District Educational Officer (4th respondent); the DEO shall consider all aspects and grant the petitioner and the Manager an opportunity of hearing before any decision is taken, and the matter shall be disposed in accordance with law.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of with directions as stated above.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Jeril P. Vincent

Respondents

State of Kerala, represented by the Secretary, Department of General Education, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
Director of General Education, Office of the Director of General Education, Jagathy, Thiruvananthapuram
Deputy Director of Education, Office of the Deputy Director of Education, Ayathonole, Thrissur
District Educational Officer, Office of the District Educational Officer, Chavakkad, Thrissur
Manager, S.S.M.V.H.S., Edakkazhiyoor, Chavakkad, Thrissur

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• C. P. Peethambaran
• Mini V. A.

Counsels for Respondents

• V. A. Muhammed
• M. Sajjad
• Sri Bijoy Chandran (Sr GP)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Jeril P. Vincent, a peon in SSM VHS, Edakkazhiyoor, Thrissur, challenges a show-cause notice issued by the school Manager under Rule 75 of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules, seeking compulsory retirement. The petition arises after a sequence of disciplinary proceedings initiated for prolonged absences (13.10.2014 to 9.1.2015) and for allegedly accepting sums from former students to alter SSLC birth dates, with the DEO (Chavakkad) finding the latter allegation credible. Despite earlier Governmental orders directing fresh inquiries for procedural compliance with Rule 75 and a third inquiry that upheld findings, the petitioner contends that the Manager cannot impose a major penalty without the required sanction and that the current show-cause is improper. Counsel for the petitioner argues Exhibit P15 (referred to in previous orders) interdicted such major penalties, and that the petitioner has already supplied a detailed reply. Counsel for the Respondents maintains that a mere show-cause cannot be challenged in a writ petition, cites P.S. Sebastian v. Co-Operative Inspector, and submits that no adverse orders are yet issued; the Manager must obtain prior sanction from the DEO (4th respondent) before imposing compulsory retirement. The Court, while noting the petitioner’s response, declines to interfere at this stage, and directs that the Manager seek prior sanction from the DEO, who shall consider all aspects and grant an opportunity of hearing to both sides before any decision is taken; the petition is disposed of with directions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Rule 75, Chapter XIVA, Kerala Education Rules (KER)Rule 74, Chapter XIVA, Kerala Education Rules (KER)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the show-cause notice proposing compulsory retirement, issued under Rule 75 of Chapter XIVA, targets a major penalty and is vitiated by prior orders that directed a fresh, procedure-compliant inquiry. Exhibit P15 and the prior government order allegedly interdicted the Manager from imposing such a penalty. The petitioner has already filed a detailed reply and seeks quashing or at least preventing the major-penalty procedure pending proper sanction and due process. The argument emphasizes that the show-cause is not permissible in light of earlier directives and that the Manager's action may be beyond lawful authority without requisite sanction.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that a show-cause notice alone cannot be the subject of a writ petition; rely on P.S. Sebastian v. Co-Operative Inspector; no adverse orders have been passed yet; under Rule 74, the Manager must obtain prior sanction from the DEO before imposing compulsory retirement; the petitioner may raise objections at the stage of sanction; the process is permissible and should be allowed to proceed with due process.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
P. S. Sebastian v. Co-Operative Inspector	1976 KLT 414	Mentioned Only	Cited by respondents to argue that mere show-cause cannot be challenged; the Court does not adopt or overrule this proposition in its ruling.
WP(C) No. 35459/2017 (This Hon'ble Court)	WP(C) No. 35459/2017	Mentioned Only	Reference to an earlier judgment in this Court; no detailed application or endorsement is stated in the current judgment.

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 Jeril P. Vincent 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.

**WP(C) NO. 16863 OF 2021** **1** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V MONDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 16863 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER/S:** JERIL P.VINCENT, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.P.J.VINCENT DE PAUL, PUTHUR HOUSE, NEAR MARKET P.O., PARAPPUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 508 (WORKING AS PEON, SSM VHS, EDAKKAZHIYOOR). BY ADVS. C.P.PEETHAMBARAN MINI.V.A. ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. 2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014. 3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR - 680 003. 4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 506. **WP(C) NO. 16863 OF 2021 2** 5 THE MANAGER, S.S.M.V.H.S., EDAKKAZHIYOOR, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 506. BY ADVS. V.A.MUHAMMED M.SAJJAD SRI BIJOY CHANDRAN, SR GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 16863 OF 2021** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** Exhibit P16 is a show-cause notice issued by the 5th respondent, the Manager of SSM VHS, Edakkazhiyoor, asking the petitioner to show cause why he shall not be compulsorily retired from service for the misdemeanours found against him pursuant to an enquiry conducted in tune with Rule 75 of Chapter XIVA of the KER. The said show cause is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The petitioner was a Peon in the School managed by the 5th respondent. The records reveal that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by the 5th respondent for remaining absent during the period from 13.10.2014 to 9.1.2015. Another allegation was that the petitioner had received amounts from former students purportedly for correcting the date of birth in their SSLC Book without the knowledge of the School Authorities. 3. After initiation of preliminary proceedings under Rule 75 of Chapter XIVA of the KER, the records were forwarded to the DEO Chavakkad by the 5th respondent, who came to the conclusion that the allegation of receipt of amounts from former students for making correction in the SSLC Book was correct. 4. The petitioner challenged the same before the Government by preferring a **WP(C) NO. 16863 OF 2021** **4** Revision Petition. The Government after finding that the allegation against the petitioner was clearly sustainable on the basis of the records, however, concluded that the enquiry conducted by the DEO was improper as the same was not in conformity with Rule 75. Accordingly, the DEO was directed to conduct an enquiry afresh and to submit a report by following the procedure. The enquiry so conducted was also the subject matter of litigation and a third enquiry was ordered. It appears that thereafter, a third enquiry was conducted, and the findings against the petitioner was confirmed. The Manager was directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 5. Sri C.P. Peethambaran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in view of the previous order and Exhibit P15 in particular, the Manager could not have imposed a major penalty. The issuance of the notice asking the petitioner to show cause against compulsory retirement, which is a major penalty, is something which has been interdicted by Exhibit P15, contends the learned counsel. It is however submitted that the petitioner has issued a detailed reply to the show cause. 6. Sri.Sajjad, the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent, submitted that a mere show cause notice cannot be the subject matter of challenge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. In order to substantiate **WP(C) NO. 16863 OF 2021 5** his contention, reliance is placed on **P.S. Sebastian v. Co Operative Inspector** (1976 KLT 414). It is contended by the learned counsel that no adverse orders have yet been passed against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the Manager has to approach the DEO for previous sanction under Rule 74 before imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement from service and the petitioner can very well raise his contentions at that stage. 7. I Have considered the submissions advanced. As stated earlier, the petitioner has approached this Court impugning a show cause notice. From the submissions of Sri.Peethambaran, it appears that the petitioner has already issued a response to the show cause notice. On the other hand, If the petitioner has not so far responded to date, it is for him to respond by raising legitimate contentions. In the facts and circumstances, I do not think that the petitioner has made out any case to interfere with the proceedings at this stage. 8. Rule 74 of Chapter XIVA says that the penalty of compulsory retirement, removal, or dismissal from service can be imposed by the Manager only with previous sanction of the District Educational Officer insofar as non teaching staff like the petitioner is concerned. In that view of the matter, the 5th respondent shall seek previous sanction from the 4th respondent who shall consider the entire aspects and take appropriate decision in accordance with law. Before taking a **WP(C) NO. 16863 OF 2021** **6** decision an opportunity of being heard shall be granted to the petitioner as well as the Manager. With these directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. **Sd/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE** DSV **WP(C) NO. 16863 OF 2021** **7** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16863/2021** PETITIONER (S) EXHIBITS: Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES AND STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS DATED 31/12/2014 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 24/1/2015 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, PAREEKSHA BHAVAN, POOJAPPURA DATED 17/3/2015 OBTAINED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INWARD REGISTER OF THE SCHOOL. - Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED NIL OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 16/2/2015 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 3/8/2017 FURNISHED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 22/8/2017 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7/11/2017 IN WP(C) NO.35459/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. - Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF ENQUIRY DATED 22/3/2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 6/4/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH **WP(C) NO. 16863 OF 2021** **8** RESPONDENT. Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 18/4/2018 WITH A COVERING LETTER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11/1/2019 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION DATED 29/1/2019. - Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/2/2019 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P16 - TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 4/8/2021 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P17 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.09.2018 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O.(ORD)NO. 3332/2021/GED DATED 9.7.2021 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT (S) EXHIBITS: NIL