Smt. RAMLATH N.M. v. Secretary to Govt. General Education Department, Trivandrum; Manager, St. Mary’s H.S.S., Morakkala, Kumarapuram P.O., Ernakulam

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2018 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1940** **WP(C).No. 2929 of 2017** ## **PETITIONER :** **SMT. RAMLATH N.M., HSA (ARABIC ), ST.MARY'S H.S.S., MORAKKALA, KUMARAPURAM P.O., ERNAKULAM.** **BY ADVS.SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR SMT.BINDU SREEDHAR** ## **RESPONDENTS :** **1. SECRETARY TO GOVT. GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695001.** **2. THE MANAGER, ST. MARY'S H.S.S., MORAKKALA, KUMARAPURAM P.O., PALLIKKARA, ERNAKULAM PIN-683565.** **R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.M.MANOJ R2 BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM VAKKANAL (SR.) R2 BY ADV. SRI.DIJO SEBASTIAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.2.2018, ALONG WITH WPC.7860/2017 & WPC.13310/2017, THE COURT ON 24.5.2018 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **EL** **WP(C).No. 2929 of 2017 (M)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** - **EXHIBIT P1: PHOTOCOPY OF THE QUICK VERIFICATION REPORT DATED 30.04.2015 ISSUED BY THE DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM UNIT, KOCHI EXHIBIT P2: PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGE DATED 07.05.2015 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER EXHIBIT P3: PHOTOCOPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER DATED 07.05.2015** - **EXHIBIT P4: PHOTOCOPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 10.07.2015 EXHIBIT P5: PHOTOCOPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED EXHIBIT P6: PHOTOCOPY OF REPLY DATED 17.08.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P7: PHOTOCOPY OF THE PUNISHMENT ORDER DATED 24.11.2015 ISSUE DBY THE MANAGER EXHIBIT P8: PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATUTORY APPEAL FIELD BY THE PETITIONER BEOFRE THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION DATED 04.12.2015** - **EXHIBIT P9: PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO.1293/2016 DATED 7.12.2016 BY THE HON'BLE COURT OF KERALA EXHIBIT P10: PHOTOCOPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER DATED 13.01.2017** - **EXHIBIT P11: PHOTOCOPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDNET** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** - **EXHIBIT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DATED 7.5.2017** - **EXHIBIT R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 27.1.2016** - **EXHIBIT R2(C) TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 7.2.2017** - **EXHIBIT R2(C)1 TRUE COPY OF THE SPECIAL FEE COMMITTEE MEETING 2007-2008 DATED 30.7.2007** **EXHIBIT R2(C)2 TRUE COPY OF THE SPECIAL FEE COMMITTEE MEETING 2008-2009 DATED 31.7.2007** **WP(C).No. 2929 of 2017 (M)** **EXHIBIT R2(C)3 TRUE COPY OF THE SPECIAL FEE COMMITTEE MEETING 2009-2010 DATED 31.7.2007 EXHIBIT R2(D) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 9.2.2017 EXHIBIT R2(D)1 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 5.9.2017 EXHIBIT R2(D)2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FROM STATE FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY, POLICE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 9.2.2016 EXHIBIT R2(D)3 TRUE COPY OF THE CHECK LEAF OF UNION BANK OF INDIA DATED 8.7.2011 EXHIBIT R2(D)4 TRUE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT DATED NIL EXHIBIT R2(E) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.5868/B2/2016/VIG. DATED 12.7.2016 EXHIBIT R2(E)1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C2(VC01/16/CRE)8151/16 DATED 18.5.2016 EXHIBIT R2(E)2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.1/2016 CRE DATED 17.3.2016 EXHIBIT R2(F) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DATED 10.3.2017** **TRUE COPY** **P.S. TO JUDGE** ## **EL** **25.5.2018** ## **ANU SIVARAMAN, J.** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).Nos.2929, 7860 & 13310 of 2017 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24[th] day of May, 2018** ## **JUDGMENT** 1. The issue raised in these writ petitions is with regard to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, who was a Headmistress. W.P.C.No.2929 of 2017 is filed challenging Exhibit P10 Government Order which suspended the petitioner till completion of investigation of a vigilance case registered against her for misappropriation of Government Funds. Exhibit P11 order of the Manager placing the petitioner under suspension is also under challenge. W.P.C.No.7860 of 2017 is filed challenging Exhibit P9 order of the DPI affirming the imposition of punishment of reversion to the post of UPSA. It is contended that the order was issued without hearing the petitioner and is bad in law. W.P.C.No.13310 of 2017 is filed challenging Exhibit P14 memo of charges issued to the petitioner by the 3[rd] respondent-Manager on 10.3.2017. The parties and the documents are being referred to as arrayed in W.P.C.No.2929 of 2017, unless specifically mentioned. W.P.(C).No.2929/17 & con.cases 2 2. The contention of the petitioner in these writ petitions is primarily to the effect that on an allegation raised by the then PTA President, the Deputy Superintendent of Police had conducted a quick verification and submitted Exhibit P1 report dated 30.04.2015. It is stated that departmental enquiry was recommended against the petitioner and the petitioner had been placed under suspension on 7.5.2015 and memo of charges were issued. By Exhibit P7 order dated 24.11.2015, the punishment of reversion to the post of UPSA was imposed on the petitioner, which was challenged in appeal. It is stated that while so, Exhibits P10 and P11 orders, which were issued placing the petitioner under suspension on the very same allegations, is illegal and unsustainable. It is further contended that the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order imposing penalty had been dismissed without considering the petitioner's contention which had led to the filing of the said writ petition. Further, it is stated that consequent on an interim order of stay of Exhibits P10 and P11 orders of suspension issued by this Court in W.P.(C).No.2929/2017, the Manager had again W.P.(C).No.2929/17 & con.cases 3 initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and had issued a third memo of charges on the very same set of allegations which is under challenge in W.P.(C).No.13310 of 2017. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that all the disciplinary actions are essentially based on the very same allegations and such action is clearly illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the petitioner is being repeatedly proceeded against on the very same charges, which is impermissible in law. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decisions of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in **Government of Tamil Nadu and Another v. R.Natarajan and others** [2008 (2) SLR 430] to contend that a second disciplinary proceedings on the very same set of allegations which has led to an exoneration in an earlier disciplinary proceedings is impermissible. The decisions of a Division Bench of this Court in **Surendran K v.Government of Kerala and others** [2008 (3) KHC 738 (DB) and **Shahul** W.P.(C).No.2929/17 & con.cases 4 **Hameed and another v. State of Kerala and another** [ILR 1998 (1) Kerala 258] are relied on to contend that the suspension long after the commission of alleged offence is illegal. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2[nd] respondent Manager contending that the allegations of misappropriation of funds and forgery of documents had been raised against the petitioner while she was working as Headmistress of the school. It is stated that Exhibit P1 book verification report had specifically considered the allegations raised against the petitioner and had recommended departmental proceedings in respect of certain of the allegations. However, in respect of the specific allegation that the petitioner had affixed the false signature on a cheque and had withdrawn Rs.30,000/- from the PTA account, a criminal case was directed to be registered. It is contended that a criminal case had accordingly been registered and the Manager had been informed that on the basis of the investigation conducted in the crime registered against the petitioner, a vigilance case has been registered arraying the W.P.(C).No.2929/17 & con.cases 5 petitioner as accused and it is stated that the earlier disciplinary proceedings which had resulted in the imposition of penalty on the petitioner by Exhibit P7 order was with regard to the charges as enumerated in Exhibit P2 which corresponded to the allegation numbers 1, 3 4, 5 and 6 and that no action had been taken pursuant to Exhibit P1 in respect of the allegation with regard to affixing of false signature and illegally withdrawing an amount of Rs.30,000/- from the PTA fund, since that allegation was liable to be investigated after registering a criminal case in terms of Exhibit P1 verification report. It is contended that the conduct of disciplinary proceedings and imposition of penalty of imposition in respect of the other allegations did not preclude the steps taken for placing the petitioner under suspension on the investigation being completed in the criminal case and a charge sheet being filed in the Vigilance Court where the petitioner was also arrayed as an accused. It is stated that these writ petitions are totally misconceived and are abuse of process of court. W.P.(C).No.2929/17 & con.cases 6 5. The decisions of the Apex Court in **State of Orissa v.Bimal Kumar Mohanty** [(1994) 4 SCC 126, **Abdul Jabbar v. Director of Public Instructions** [2011 (2) KLT 831], and **Tank v. State of Gujarat** [2006 (3) KLT 514 (SC)] are relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent in support to the contention that the action now initiated is well in order and this Court could not be justified in interfering with the orders of suspension and disciplinary proceedings in the case of this nature. 6. In W.P.(C).No.7860 of 2017 also, it is contended by the respondents that the contentions raised by the petitioner were considered and the petitioner's representative was heard before the orders were passed and there is no substance in the contention raised that the appeal had been decided ex parte. In W.P.(C).No.13310 of 2017 it is contented that the interim order issued in W.P.(C).No. 2929 of 2017 had made it clear that the order will not prevent the Manager from issuing orders of suspension in accordance with law. It is stated that complaints had been received against the petitioner from the earlier W.P.(C).No.2929/17 & con.cases 7 Manager alleging that the petitioner had forged his signature and that of other committee members and fraudulently created records and minutes of the special fee committee meetings which were never made. It is stated that it was on the basis of the said complaints received on 9.2.2017 that the fresh memo of charges dated 10.2.2017 was issued to the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner was a person against whom serious allegations of falsification of records, misappropriation of PTA funds and fabrication of documents has been alleged and the petitioner is duty bound to answer the contentions raised against her. 7. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the official respondents as well contending that vigilance case has been registered against the petitioner with regard to the affixing of false signature on cheque and withdrawing amounts fraudulently from the PTA funds. It is stated that the said allegations did not find a place in the earlier memo of charges which had led to the imposition of penalty on the petitioner by Exhibit P7. W.P.(C).No.2929/17 & con.cases 8 8. I have considered the contentions advanced. The allegation against the petitioner is primarily that she is being repeatedly served with memo of charges in respect of the very same allegations which amounts to the multiple penalties being imposed on the same allegations. It is seen from Exhibit P1 that there were several allegations raised against the petitioner with regard to the misappropriation of amounts. Most of the allegations were found to be substantiated in the book verification report and departmental action was recommended in the case of the allegations. However, with respect to the allegation that an amount of Rs.30,000/- had been withdrawn from the PTA fund by affixing a forged signature on a cheque, the action recommended in Exhibit P1 was specifically for the registering of a crime and an investigation into the same. It is evident that a crime was registered and the matter was investigated. It is clear from Exhibit P10 that a vigilance case has been registered against the petitioner pursuant to the investigation conducted in the case. W.P.(C).No.2929/17 & con.cases 9 9. From an examination of the earlier memo of charges, it is clear that the issue of withdrawing amount by affixing forged signature on cheque did not find a place in the earlier memo of charges which had led to the imposition of penalty by Exhibit P7. The contention, therefore, that the petitioner is being forced to face repeated disciplinary proceedings on same charges is completely unsustainable and is against the facts as disclosed from the materials produced in these cases. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is being placed under suspension on unsubstantiated communications of inferior officers of the police department also cannot be sustained, since Exhibit P10 specifically refers to registration of vigilance case, i.e., VC01/2016/CRE against the petitioner which the petitioner has not denied. - 10.In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the challenge against Exhibits P10 and P11 orders of suspension are unsustainable. The challenge fails and W.P.(C).No.2929/2017 is accordingly dismissed. W.P.(C).No.2929/17 & con.cases 10 11. The order impugned in W.P.(C).No. 7680 of 2017 is one issued by the DPI and is admittedly a revisible order. It is also stated in the order that the contentions raised by the representative of the petitioner were heard by the DPI. I, therefore, do not find any patent illegality in the order which requires interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The said writ petition also fails. 12.With regard to the contentions in W.P.(C).No. 13310 of 2017 also, I find that the memo of charges now issued to the petitioner are with regard to distinct allegations of fabricating documents by affixing forged signatures to make it appear that a special fee committee had been constituted. This being a separate allegation which did not find a place in the earlier memo of charges, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot contend that the same is vitiated in any manner. The factual contentions of the petitioner in reply to the memo of charges will be considered in accordance with law in the disciplinary 11 W.P.(C).No.2929/17 & con.cases proceedings to be proceeded on the basis of the memo impugned. The said writ petition also fails and is accordingly dismissed. All contentions on the merits of the allegations are left open. Sd/- **Anu Sivaraman, Judge** sj