Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaDivision BenchWrit Appeal partly allowed. Directions issued t...

The Manager, Malabar Special Police English Medium High School, Malappuram & The Deputy Commandant v. Sathyabhama V.K. & District Educational Officer, Malappuram & State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:WA.No.1616 of 2014 (M)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Antony Dominic
  • Anil K. Narendran
Judgment Date
2014-11-12
Court Decision / Holding
The Division Bench partly allows the writ appeal. It sets aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and directs that Annexure A1 be treated as the enquiry report; the delinquent shall file objections within three weeks, the disciplinary authority shall hear and take a fresh decision in accordance with law (including whether back wages are payable). Since Ext.P19 is set aside, the proceedings may be continued in the fresh inquiry, and the delinquent shall be reinstated in service during the pendency of those fresh proceedings, subject to the outcome of the fresh decision.
Final Disposition
Writ Appeal partly allowed. Directions issued to treat Annexure A1 as the enquiry report, permit objections, conduct a fresh enquiry and decide on back wages; Ext.P19 terminated; the petitioner/appellant may be reinstated during the pendency of fresh proceedings subject to the fresh order.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • The Manager, Malabar Special Police English Medium High School, Malappuram
  • The Deputy Commandant, Malabar Special Police English Medium High School, Malappuram

Respondents

  • Sathyabhama V.K., W/o Nandakumar V., Sree Sai, Middle Hill, Malappuram - 676505
  • District Educational Officer, Malappuram - 676505
  • State of Kerala represented by the Secretary to Government General Education Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram 695001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • P. C. Sasidharan

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Dr. George Abraham
  • • Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ appeal challenges the order of a learned Single Judge in WP(C) 26963/2009, which quashed disciplinary proceedings against Sathyabhama V.K., a music teacher, and directed her reinstatement with full back benefits after finding the enquiry report not furnished with the show-cause notice. The appellants contend that a proper enquiry had been conducted and Annexure A1 is the enquiry report; thus, rather than reinstatement, the court should set aside the final termination order and direct the disciplinary authority to furnish the enquiry report to the delinquent and proceed afresh in accordance with law. The Division Bench relies on the principles articulated in the Apex Court's decision in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar to hold that the appropriate remedy where a potential natural justice defect exists is to set aside the final order and allow the disciplinary authorities to restart the process after furnishing the enquiry report, rather than automatically reinstate. The court ultimately remands the matter by directing that Annexure A1 be treated as the enquiry report, objections be invited within three weeks, and a fresh decision be taken; Ext.P19 is set aside, with liberty to continue the proceedings, and reinstatement can be considered subject to the fresh order.”

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Principles of natural justice
  • ECIL v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727 (doctrine relied upon)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that a disciplinary enquiry was conducted and Annexure A1 represented the report; even if the enquiry report was not furnished with the show-cause notice, the correct remedy was not to strike down the entire disciplinary process and reinstate the delinquent, but to set aside the final order and require the disciplinary authority to furnish the enquiry report to the delinquent and initiate fresh proceedings from that stage. They argued that the appellate court should follow the Supreme Court’s view in ECIL to ensure due process while maintaining the integrity of the enquiry process, including allowing the delinquent to file objections and receive a fresh decision after hearing.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents urged that the enquiry was conducted and Annexure A1 was relied upon; the show cause and termination order were validly issued; the proper course, if any irregularity existed, was to rely on the established disciplinary framework and, if necessary, reinstate with appropriate back wages only after fresh proceedings would be completed. They relied on ECIL’s principle to justify the procedures followed and urged upholding the single Judge’s order directing reinstatement with consequences.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar[(1993) 4 SCC 727]PositiveThe court applied the principle from ECIL that if the enquiry report is not furnished with the show cause, the remedy is to set aside the final order and direct fresh proceedings, rather than reinstating automatically.

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 The Manager, Malabar Special Police English Medium High School, Malappuram & The Deputy Commandant v. Sathyabhama V.K. & District Educational Officer, Malappuram & State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/21ST KARTHIKA, 1936 WA.No. 1616 of 2014 (M) IN WP(C).26963/2009 --------------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 26963/2009 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 07-08-2014 APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2: ------------------------ 1. THE MANAGER,MALABAR SPECIAL POLICE ENGLISH MEDIUM HIGH SCHOOL, MALAPPURAM 2. THE DEPUTY COMMANDANT - MALABAR SPECIAL POLICE ENGLISH MEDIUM HIGH SCHOOL MALAPPURAM BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4: ---------------------------- 1. SATHYABHAMA.V.K W/O.NANDAKUMAR.V.1, SREE SAI, MIDDLE HILL MALAPPURAM - 676505. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MALAPPURAM - 676505. 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. R1 BY DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM R2, R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.A.1616/14 ## APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT. /TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------W.A.No.1616 of 2014 ----------------------------------Dated this the 12[th] day of November, 2014 ## JUDGMENT ## Antony Dominic, J. 1. This appeal is filed by respondents 1 and 2 in W.P (C).26963/09. The writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein, seeking to quash Ext.P17 show cause notice and Ext.P19 termination order and for a writ of mandamus or any other order directing the first respondent to reinstate her back into service with consequential benefits. By the judgment under appeal, learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and after setting aside the disciplinary proceedings, directed that she be reinstated with full benefits. It is this judgment which is under challenge before us. - 2.Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 and 3. WA.1616/14 2 - 3.First respondent was a Music Teacher in the Malabar Special Police English Medium High School, Malappuram, of which, the first appellant is the Manager. She was appointed in service on 31.10.1991 and this appointment is stated to be on contract basis which is a disputed question of fact and we are not called upon to examine the same. - 4.Suffice it to say that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the first respondent and finding her explanation to be unsatisfactory, enquiry was ordered. According to the appellants, an enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the report of the enquiry was submitted finding the first respondent guilty of the charges. Annexure A1 in the appeal is stated to be the report of the enquiry. Finally, by Ext.P19 order dated 20.8.2009, her services were discontinued. It was in these circumstances, the writ petition was filed. - 5.In the judgment under appeal, learned single Judge invalidated the proceedings against the first WA.1616/14 3 respondent and ordered that she be reinstated in service mainly for the reason that the enquiry report was not furnished to her along with Ext.P17 show cause notice. Learned Judge also made an observation that there was no enquiry report and that the charges are untenable. It was on that basis, learned Judge directed reinstatement of the first respondent with all consequential benefits. 6.Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and also examining the case of the first respondent in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B.Karunakar [(1993) 4 SCC 727], we are of the view that since it is the specific case of the appellants that enquiry was conducted and Annexure A1 is the report of the enquiry, even if enquiry report was not furnished to the delinquent along with the show cause notice issued by the disciplinary authority calling for objections, the proper course to be adopted by the court or the Tribunal dealing with such a case is not to set aside the whole proceedings and to direct reinstatement, but to set aside the final order WA.1616/14 4 passed and to require the disciplinary authority to furnish to the delinquent the enquiry report and to start the proceedings afresh from that stage. In such circumstances, we are unable to sustain the judgment of the learned single Judge setting aside the proceedings initiated against the first respondent. - 7.In the aforesaid circumstances, we set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and dispose of this appeal with the following directions: - (1)Since Annexure A1 in the writ appeal is stated to be the enquiry report relied on by the appellants and copy thereof is now served on the counsel for the first respondent, we direct that Annexure A1 now served on the first respondent shall be treated as enquiry report served on the delinquent. It is directed that the delinquent shall file her objections raising all objections she may have against the findings in the enquiry report. This shall be done within three weeks from WA.1616/14 5 today and such objections shall be filed before the disciplinary authority. - (2)Once the objections are filed by the first respondent as above, the disciplinary authority will hear her and take a fresh decision in the matter in accordance with law. - (3)Since it is the admitted position that the first respondent was never kept under suspension and was continuing in service till her services were “discontinued” by Ext.P19, we direct that she shall forthwith be reinstated in service subject to continuance of the proceedings as ordered above. - (4)Once the disciplinary authority takes a fresh decision as ordered above, he shall also take decision on the question whether the first respondent is entitled to backwages and if so, the rate thereof. WA.1616/14 6 (5)Ext.P19 will stand set aside with liberty to continue the proceedings as above. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge. Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, Judge. kkb. /TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE