Manager, Darul Uloom Vocational Higher Secondary and High Secondary School, Ernakulam v. State of Kerala and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/ 11TH KARTHIKA, 1939 WA.No. 2000 of 2017 () IN WP(C).32772/2015 -------------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 32772/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 19-09-2017 APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER: ------------------------------- THE MANAGER, DARUL ULOOM VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY AND HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ERNAKULAM-682 018. BY ADVS.SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.M.C.GOPI ## RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------ ## 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE DIREICTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. ## 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM-682 030. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, - ERNAKULAM-682 031. 5. RIBIN K.A. FORMER PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER, DARUL ULOOM VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY AND HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, VEEKSHANAM ROAD, KOCHI-682 018, RESIDING AT KANIYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 513. R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR (SR.) R5 BY ADV. SRI.T.U.ZIYAD R5 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL V.MOHAMMED R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## K. SURENDRA MOHAN & MARY JOSEPH, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 2000 of 2017 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2[nd] day of November, 2017 ## JUDGMENT ## Surendra Mohan, J. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 19.9.2017 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 32772 of 2015. The appellant is the Manager of an aided School. The issue relates to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the 5[th] respondent, a Physical Education Teacher of the School. When this appeal came up before us for admission, Senior Counsel Sri. P.K. Suresh Kumar who appears for the first respondent as well as the Government Pleader who represents respondents 2 to 4 requested that the matter be heard and finally disposed of on the merits. Since all the parties were represented through counsel, we acceded to the said request. We have thus heard the appeal on the merits on consent of all the parties. W.A.2000/2017 2 2. The 5[th] respondent while working as the Physical Education Teacher of the appellant's School was suspended from service on 29.11.2011 alleging various acts of misconduct. The period of suspension was extended on 14.12.2011. The said order was challenged by the 5[th] respondent in W.P.(C) No. 33894 of 2011. The writ petition was allowed and the order of suspension was quashed by this Court. Accordingly, he was reinstated. However, on the very next day, i.e., 17.1.2012, the 5[th] respondent was suspended again. 3. Thereafter, Ext.P1 Memo of Charges dated 31.12.2011 was served on the fifth respondent. According to the appellant, he had thereafter sought permission to peruse the relevant documents by Ext.P2. Though he was granted opportunity to peruse and collect the documents as requested for by him, he did not turn up on the dates notified for the purpose. Thereafter, by Ext.P6 dated 16.1.2012, as a last chance, he was granted permission to peruse the documents W.A.2000/2017 3 on 20.1.2012. But he did not turn up. In the said circumstances, the enquiry was directed to be proceeded with. Accordingly, the District Educational Officer conducted the enquiry. Though the 5[th] respondent participated in the enquiry, he did not cross-examine the witnesses. Therefore, the enquiry was concluded and as per Ext.P10 report of enquiry he was found guilty of all the charges. Thereafter, by Ext.P11 dated 25.5.2012, he was directed to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. Thereupon he submitted Ext.P12 objections. The objections were considered and by Ext.P13 order dated 7.11.2012, he was removed from service. Ext.P14 request was submitted under Rule 74, Chapter XIVA, Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (KER for short) seeking sanction of the Deputy Director of Education, Ernakulam for imposition of the punishment of removal from service. However, by Ext.P15, the 3[rd] respondent found that the charges in the case were not sufficient to justify the imposition of a major punishment like removal from service. W.A.2000/2017 4 Therefore, the appellant was directed to impose a punishment proportionate to the gravity of the charges proved. 4. The appellant challenged Ext.P15 order in revision before the Government. As per Ext.P16 order dated 31.10.2013, the Government ordered that since the charges levelled against the 5[th] respondent were proved at the enquiry conducted, the decision of the Management was justified. Therefore, the management was permitted to proceed as per the provisions of the KER. Pursuant to Ext.P16, by Ext.P17 order dated 8.11.2013 the punishment of removal from service was imposed on the 5[th] respondent. The said order was challenged by the 5[th] respondent before this Court in W.P. (C) No. 30422 of 2013. As per Ext.P18 judgment, Exts.P16 and P17 were quashed and the Government was directed to reconsider the matter. Accordingly the matter was reconsidered. Thereafter, Ext.P20 order dated 8.10.2015 was issued. As per Ext.P20, the Manager was directed to proceed with a punishment proportionate to the gravity of the charges W.A.2000/2017 5 proved as per the enquiry report finding that the proved charges do not warrant imposition of the punishment of removal from service. It was aggrieved by Ext.P20 that the appellant had filed W.P.(C) No.32772 of 2015 before this Court. As already noticed above, the said writ petition has been dismissed by the judgment appealed against. 5. According to learned Senior Counsel Sri.N.N. Sugunapalan, who appears for the appellant, this is a case in which a proper domestic enquiry was conducted by the fourth respondent. Though the fifth respondent was given an opportunity to participate in the enquiry, he did not choose to defend himself by cross-examining the witnesses. Therefore the Enquiry Officer has entered findings of guilt in respect of all the charges levelled against the 5[th] respondent placing implicit reliance on the evidence on record. The charges against the delinquent having been proved, the Manager was at liberty to impose the punishment of removal from service as done in the present case. Since the disciplinary authority is W.A.2000/2017 6 the Manager, the decision of the said authority was not liable to be interfered with. Reliance is placed on Chapter XIII of KER to contend that the conduct of a teacher is required to be exemplary at all times. Wherever the conduct of a teacher is found to be unbecoming of the post that he was holding, removal from service is mandatory. Therefore the conduct of the 5[th] respondent in the present case justifies imposition of the punishment of removal from service. The learned Senior Counsel places reliance on the decisions in Prem Nath Bali v. Registrar, High Court of Delhi ((2015) 16 SCC 415), Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. N.B. Nrawade ((2005) 3 SCC 134), New Shorrock Mills v. Maheshbhai T. Rao ((1996) 6 SCC 590) and Om Prakash Mann v. Director of Education (Basic) ((2006) 7 SCC 558), to contend that once the charges are proved at a proper enquiry, the question of punishment is a matter that is entirely within the discretion of the Disciplinary Authority. In view of the above, it is contended that the authorities had no power to interfere with the punishment that was sought to be W.A.2000/2017 7 imposed. Reliance is placed on the decision in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Vinod Kumar ((2008) 1 SCC 115) = (2008 KHC 4000) to contend that the punishment of removal from service was justified for the reason that the teacher had not challenged the report of enquiry. According to the learned Senior Counsel, there is evidence in the present case to show that the fifth respondent had threatened teachers including the Principal of the institution which amounted to insubordination attracting the punishment of dismissal from service. Counsel places reliance on the decision in Deputy Commissioner, KVS v. J. Hussain ((2013) 10 SCC 106 = 2013 KHC 4799) to contend that the punishment of dismissal was imposed on the charge sheeted employee in the present case for forcible entry into the Principal's room in an inebriated condition. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the Single Judge has not considered the above aspects of the case. On the above grounds, he seeks interference with the judgment appealed against. W.A.2000/2017 8 6. Per contra, Senior Counsel Sri. P.K. Suresh Kumar who appears for the fifth respondent draws our attention to Rule 74 Chapter XIVA KER to point out that though the appellant was the Disciplinary Authority, no punishment of removal from service could be imposed by him without the previous sanction of the Deputy Director of Education in the present case, the third respondent. It was in exercise of the said power conferred statutorily that the said authority had issued Ext.P15. In all the decisions on which reliance has been placed by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, the Disciplinary Authority was clothed with the power to impose even the punishment of dismissal. In stark contrast such a power is absent in the present case. The Senior Counsel also draws our attention to Ext.P10 enquiry to point out that, the charges levelled against the fifth respondent had not been proved, even going by the statements in the Enquiry Report. Though the first charge against the fifth respondent was that he had forcibly and unauthorisedly marked attendance in the W.A.2000/2017 9 Attendance Register though he was absent on those days, there is no finding to the said effect in Ext.P10. The finding of the Enquiry Officer is that since the fifth respondent had been absent, some other teachers had engaged classes on the said date. The said finding does not answer the charge that was levelled against him. The dates referred to in the enquiry report are also found to vary when compared with the dates referred to in the charge sheet. It was taking note of the above state of affairs that the authorities had directed the Manager to refrain from imposing the punishment of removal from service. According to the learned Senior Counsel therefore, the third respondent was justified in declining sanction for imposing the punishment of dismissal on the fifth respondent. The learned Single Judge has also rightly dismissed the writ petition. 7. Heard. It is true that an enquiry was conducted into the charges levelled against the fifth respondent. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel W.A.2000/2017 10 for the fifth respondent, a perusal of the charges shows that the findings entered fall short of the requirement necessary to warrant a conclusion that the charges have been proved. With respect to the first charge, the allegation was that the fifth respondent was absent on October 18, November 29, December 9, 10 and 13 in 2010, January 24, February 2, 29 and September 29 of 2011. However, it was alleged that he had forcibly and unauthorisedly marked attendance on those dates. The finding in Ext.P10 shows that the Enquiry Officer had, after examining the Attendance Register and the substitute arrangements made, found other teachers to have handled his periods, though he had marked his attendance. Charges 1 to 3 are held to have been proved. However, there is nothing on record to show that he had forcibly and unauthorisedly marked attendance on both days in spite of his absence. As per charge 3, he was alleged to have moved out of the campus while on duty without making an entry in the Movement Register and obtaining permission from the W.A.2000/2017 11 Principal. No Movement Register is seen to have been examined. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the Senior Counsel for the fifth respondent, it is doubtful whether the findings in the Enquiry Report are justified in the circumstances of the case. 8. It was in the above state of affairs that the Manager had sought sanction to impose the punishment of removal from service. It was obviously taking note of the inadequacies in Ext.P10 report that the authority had declined sanction for imposition of the punishment of removal from service. The said finding was upheld by the Government also. The learned Single Judge has also found no grounds to interfere with the same. 9. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that the nature of the punishment that requires to be imposed on an employee against whom charges are proved, is a matter entirely within the discretion of the Disciplinary Authority. Decisions are also cited in support of W.A.2000/2017 12 the above proposition. However, in all the cases on which reliance has been placed, the Disciplinary Authority also had the authority to impose the punishment of removal from service. In the present case, the power of the appellant to impose the punishment of removal from service is subject to obtaining of prior sanction from the third respondent under Rule 74 Chapter XIVA KER. It is the said power that has been exercised by the third respondent in Ext.P15. No infirmity warranting an interference with the said proceedings have been brought to our notice. The Government examined Ext.P15 and have confirmed the same. The learned Single Judge has also found no infirmity in the said proceedings. We find no grounds to take a different view of the matter. Though the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Chapter XIII KER to contend that being a teacher who is expected to be a role model for the student, his conduct deserved stern action, we do not find any grounds to conclude that the conduct of the teacher attracted the W.A.2000/2017 13 provisions of Chapter XIII KER. There was no charge on the said ground against the fifth respondent and for the said reason, there is no finding in Ext.P10 on the above aspect. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE Sd/- MARY JOSEPH JUDGE sb