Suresh Kumar C.M. v. District Educational Officer, Kanhangad & Ors.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 10TH CHAITHRA, 1943** ## **WP(C).No.14398 OF 2018(Y)** ## **PETITIONER:** **SURESH KUMAR C.M., TRAINING SCHOOL ASSISTANT, S.N.T.T.I. NILESWARAM,PADANAKKAD P.O, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, R/AT KONATHU VEEDU,KINATHIL, EDACHAKAL P.O, KASARAGOD.** **BY ADVS. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.) SRI.BALU TOM SRI.BONNY BENNY SMT.DIVYA S KUMAR SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KANHANGAD - 671 315.** **2 HEADMISTRESS, S.N.T.T.I, NILESWARAM, PADANNAKKAD P.O, - 671 314,KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** - **3 MANAGER, S.N.T.T.I, NILESWARAM, PADANNAKKAD P.O, 671 314, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** - **4 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION KASARAGOD - 671 121.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.M.MANOJ – SR GP SRI.MURALI PALLATH** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WPC 14398/18 2 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, while working as a Training School Assistant in the 'S.N.T.T.I', Nileswaram, was suspended from service by the 1st respondent-District Educational Officer (DEO), on the allegation that a crime has been registered against him, namely Crime No.118/17, by the Hodsdurg Police Station, under Section 354(d) of Indian Penal Code for having misbehaved with a lady Teacher (Trainee). 2. The petitioner says that, however, no enquiry proceedings have been initiated against him, except a sort of a preliminary enquiry, which had been conducted by the 1st respondent; and that thereafter, he has been issued with Ext.P3 order awarding a major punishment of reduction in rank and transferring and posting him to the category of Upper Primary School Teacher in another WPC 14398/18 3 school. 2. The petitioner submits that on account of a management dispute, the 4th respondent- Deputy Director of Education (DDE) was officiating as Manager of the school and therefore, that he was the only person competent to have conducted an enquiry under Rule 75 of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules (KER for short). He alleges that since Ext.P3 has been issued without any such enquiry being initiated or even contemplated – which is evident because not even a memo of charges had been issued against him - the same is untenable and liable to be set aside by this Court. 3. I have heard Sri.Ramesh Chandar, learned Senior Counsel instructed by Smt.K.A.Sanjeetha – learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.P.M.Manoj – learned Senior Government Pleader. WPC 14398/18 4 |4.<br>Sri.Ramesh Chandar,<br>learned Senior| |---| |Counsel, relied, in substantiation of his| |client's contentions, on the judgment of this| |Court in<br>**Narikkuni A.U.P.S. v. State of Kerala**| |[2017(3)KLT 397]<br>to argue that, before a| |Manager could impose a major penalty on a| |teacher, the procedure under Rules 74 and 75| |of Chapter XIVA of the KER has to be| |imperatively complied with. He predicated| |that, in the case at hand, the admitted facts| |would show that the allegation against his| |client was made by a lady teacher, which| |persuaded the Authorities to suspend him| |forthwith from service; but that, thereafter,| |no valid procedure, either under Rule 74 or an| |enquiry under Rule 75, had been complied with| |or conducted by the 4<br>th<br>respondent and that it| |is expressly admitted, even by the 1<br>st| |respondent-DEO in his counter affidavit, that| |he had no jurisdiction to exercise any power| WPC 14398/18 5 under Rule 75(2) of Chapter XIVA of the KER with regard to imposition of make a punishment and that this could have been done only by the 4th respondent who was the officiating Manager. Sri.Ramesh Chandar then added that no Manager could have imposed a major punishment in the manner as has been done in Ext.P3, without following due procedure and therefore, that the said order is certainly deserving to be set aside. 5. In response, the learned Senior Government Pleader – Sri.P.M.Manoj, submitted that the allegations against the petitioner - as is available from the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent - were very grievous and that the Authorities concerned had no other option but to place him under suspension preparatory to an enquiry. He, however, conceded – to a pointed question from this Court – that neither the documents on record WPC 14398/18 6 or the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent show that any enquiry under Rule 75 had been conducted by the Manager – the 4th respondent herein; or even that a charge memo had been served on the petitioner, calling for his explanation prior to Ext.P3 order being issued. He, however, submitted that in the peculiar circumstances of this case, such a procedure was not necessary to be followed because of the grievous nature of the allegations made against the petitioner and because the honour of a lady teacher was at stake. He, therefore, prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed. 6. In reply, the learned Senior Counsel – Sri.Ramesh Chandar, submitted that, in fact, the allegations made against his client are completely without basis, which is manifest from Ext.P4 order of this Court, which quashed the criminal case against his client, finding WPC 14398/18 7 |that the allegations were without factual| |---| |edifice. He asserted that, therefore, the| |Authorities could not have issued Ext.P3,| |without adverting to any of these facts and| |thus reiteratingly prayed that the reliefs| |sought for by his client be allowed.| |7.<br>I must say that I find substantial| |force in the afore submissions of Sri.Ramesh| |Chandar because, the uncontested facts on| |record clearly demonstrate that Ext.P3 order,| |imposing a major penalty on the petitioner,| |has been issued by the 1<br>st<br>respondent - who was| |the officiating Manager, without following any| |of the mandatory procedure under Rules 74 and| |75 of the KER. As rightly stated by the| |learned Senior Counsel, these issues have| |already been answered in favour of the| |petitioner by this Court in<br>**Narikkuni A.U.P.S**| |(supra) and it is apodictic that in the| |absence of a proper enquiry being conducted| WPC 14398/18 8 against the petitioner, he could not have been condemned as being guilty, even when he had not admitted to the imputations against him and when the criminal case stood quashed through Ext.P4 judgment of this Court. 8. When I say as afore, it may not be misunderstood to mean that merely because a criminal case is quashed, the teacher or the person accused should be exonerated of charges; but that this is a vital factor which ought to have engaged the mind of the DEO, before he could have issued Ext.P3, particularly when no enquiry against the petitioner had been initiated or completed. In the afore circumstances, I allow this Writ Petition and set aside Ext.P3 order. I make it clear that since I have quashed Ext.P3 only for the reasons above, the respondents will be at liberty to initiate any action against the petitioner as per law, if WPC 14398/18 9 they are so interested, however, subject to sufficient opportunities being offered to him and in imperative compliance of all the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and KER. ## **Sd/-** ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** RR **JUDGE** WPC 14398/18 10 ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 25.10.2017. EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 26.03.2018. EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B3/7360/2017 DATED 28.03.2018. EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOSTATE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CRLMC 8193/2019 DATED 4.2.2019 EXHIBIT P5 PHOTSTAT COPY OF TE JUDGMENT IN WPC 6881/2015 DATED 2.6.2017 RESPONDENTS' EXTS: EXT.R2(A) TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF THE STAFF MEETING HELD ON 23.10.2017 EXT.R2(B) TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT PETITION DATED 24.10.2017 RECEIVED FROM SMT.ANJANA P. EXT.R2(C) TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF THE STAFF MEETING HELD ON 27.10.2017