Kerala High Court
A.P.Rameshan vs The State Of Kerala on 14 July, 2008
Author: K.T.Sankaran
Bench: K.T.Sankaran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20667 of 2008(I)
1. A.P.RAMESHAN, HEAD MASTER
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
For Petitioner :SRI.MOHAN C.MENON
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :14/07/2008
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN,J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.20667 of 2008 I
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of July, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
When the Writ Petition came up for admission on 9.7.2008, time was granted to get instructions and to file statements by the respondents. A statement dated 10.7.2008 is filed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government on behalf of the first respondent. Today, when the Writ Petition came up in the admission list, the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader argued the matter in detail and the Writ Petition is being disposed of finally.
2. The order under challenge in this Writ Petition is Ext.P2 order dated 4.7.2008 passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Malappuram, placing the petitioner, who is the Headmaster of Thrikkulam Government U.P. School, under suspension. The case of the petitioner is that Ext.P2 order of suspension is vitiated by legal mala fides, unfair and unjust. It is also submitted that Ext.P2 order is not a simple order of suspension, but of a punitive nature, issued without notice and without granting opportunity to show cause.
WP(C) No.20667/2008 2
3. It is stated that there are 1362 students in the Government U.P.School, Thrikkulam. Standard VII have six divisions and total number of students is 253. In Standard VII C where the incident, which led to the passing of Ext.P2 order of suspension took place, there are 42 pupils. On 23.6.2008, it is stated that, certain pupils in Standard VII C had torn off page Nos.23 and 24 of the Social Studies text book. There is an allegation that it was at the instance of a teacher who was the class teacher of another class. The class teacher of Standard VII C, apparently did not report the matter to the petitioner, the Headmaster. The Headmaster submits that on 24th, 25th and 26th of June, 2008, he was attending meetings at S.S.A., Malappuram, Headmasters' Conference at Malappuram and One-day Inspection Training Class at Malappuram, respectively. The Headmaster states that the administrative charge of the school was given to the next senior-most U.P.S.A. According to the petitioner, he came to know about the incident only on 26.6.2008. Without delay, he conducted enquiry and submitted Ext.P1 report dated 28.6.2008 to the Deputy Director of Education, Malappuram. It is stated in Ext.P1 report that the petitioner, Headmaster, came to know about the incident only on 26.6.2008. 27.6.2008 was a holiday for the school. 28.6.2008, being the next working day, an enquiry was conducted on that day. In Ext.P1, it is stated that on 28.6.2008, the petitioner had sent for the class teacher of Standard VII C and all the Social Studies text books in the possession of the students were collected. 39 books were available and it was found that the relevant pages in 15 text books were completely torn off and in four text books the pages were partly torn off. The WP(C) No.20667/2008 3 petitioner had also summoned the 19 students and they were questioned. Some of the students stated that they did the offending act on the instruction of the class leader. Some others stated that they did it as others did it. On the basis of the statement given by the pupils, the Headmaster again summoned the class leader. In the statement made by the class leader, it is stated that on 23.6.2008, before the commencement of the first period after lunch, he enquired with Soopi Master as to whether the relevant pages constituted the controversial portion of the Social Studies text book. Soopi Master stated that he is not the class teacher and had shown some gesture. The class leader took it as a gesture conveying the idea to tear off the pages. Some pupils had torn off the pages fully while some others only partly. Some students had done the mischief even before that. The petitioner has also stated in the report that on his enquiry, he could not find that the incident happened on the instigation of any teacher. It is also stated in the report that at the time when he made enquiries, the Sub Inspector of Special Branch Police was also available in the school.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P2 order of suspension is passed only on the basis of a fax message dated 3.7.2008 issued by the first respondent, which is referred to as reference in Ext.P2 order of suspension. In Ext.P2 order, it is stated that it has come to the notice of the authorities that some students in Standard VII C of the school had torn off certain pages of the text book concerned. It is further stated in Ext.P2 that it is necessary to take ideal punitive action ( ), WP(C) No.20667/2008 4 having found that an illegal act took place. It is not clear from Ext.P2 as to whether punitive action is proposed to be taken against the culprits or the teachers or the Headmaster. The fax message, on the basis of which Ext.P2 order was issued, was not produced before the Court.
5. In the statement filed by the first respondent, it is stated in paragraph 4, thus -
"4. The Government on receiving the report from the 2nd and 3rd respondents, found that an undesirable incident has been committed in the school and decided to suspend the Headmaster, who was having full disciplinary control over the students and also administrative control over the staff of the school. The Government, therefore, by letter dated 3.7.2008 directed the 2nd respondent to place the petitioner under suspension and to report the matter. On the basis of the Government direction, the 2nd respondent issued Exhibit.P2 order placing the petitioner under suspension. It is submitted that the petitioner, who was the Headmaster of Government U.P.School, Thrikulam was present in the school on 23.6.2008 on which day the incident occurred. It could not be heard to say that the petitioner, who is the Headmaster of the school, did not come to know of the incident on 23.6.2008 but came to WP(C) No.20667/2008 5 knew about it only on 26.6.2008. In the Writ Petition though the petitioner has stated that the occurrence of the incident came into his knowledge only on 26.6.2008, even then he failed to report the same to the higher authorities either on the same day or at least on the next day on 27.6.2008. Only when the 3rd respondent, Assistant Educational Officer telephoned the petitioner on the evening of 27.6.2008 after coming to know of the incident from media that the petitioner also informed the 3rd respondent that such a thing happened on 23.6.2008. From the above it can be seen that there were serious lapses, laches and lack of supervision on the part of petitioner in connection with the incident. It is submitted that the incident which occurred on 23.6.2008 has caused great deal of embarrassment to the Government. This happened only due to the reason that the petitioner failed to check the occurrence of such an incident and also did not take any further action in the matter. There was no attempt on the part of the petitioner to inform the higher ups about the incident even after he came to know of the same. Since the Government found that the petitioner had totally failed to discharge his duties properly, a direction was issued to the 2nd respondent to suspend the petitioner."
WP(C) No.20667/2008 6
It is also stated in the statement that the petitioner had miserably failed in exercising his duties and supervisory powers in the matter of the incident which occurred on 23.6.2008 and "thereafter". The statement would indicate that a charge memo has been issued against the petitioner. In paragraph 6 of the statement, it is stated thus -
"......... Primafacie the Government found that the conduct of the petitioner was undesirable and he is not fit to continue in the post till the disciplinary proceedings are finalized..............."
6. There is no allegation against the petitioner that he was instrumental for the incident. There is no allegation that he instigated any student, teacher or any other person to do anything or not to do anything. There is also no allegation that he did something to suppress the incident. The averments in the statement would indicate that it was the duty of the petitioner to report the matter to the higher ups and had a proper report been submitted, appropriate action could have been taken. Ext.P1 report was submitted on 28.6.2008. On a query, the Government Pleader stated that no action has been taken till now against any teacher or any pupil touching upon the alleged incident. So, it would not have made any difference even if the Headmaster had reported the matter on 23rd or 24th of June, 2008. Even after getting the report on 28.6.2008, till 14.7.2008, no action has been taken against any person. There is no case that the Headmaster had any guilty intention. It is not stated that the WP(C) No.20667/2008 7 petitioner had prior knowledge about the intention of the pupils concerned, and that he did not take any action to prevent the mischief. There is no case that he misled the pupils or the teachers. A reading of the statement and a perusal of Ext.P2 suspension order would clearly show that the order of suspension is punitive in nature. Ext.P2 suspension order is not issued by the Deputy Director of Education on his own. But, he passed the order only on the basis of the fax message issued by the first respondent. Even the fax message is not produced before the Court. Since Ext.P2 suspension order has originated as a result of the said fax message, the submission made by the learned Government Pleader that the matter would be considered by the first respondent on a representation submitted by the petitioner is without any substance. The first respondent having taken a decision to take " ", what is the point in making a representation before the Government complaining about suspension?. Any such consideration would be a farce and the petitioner cannot be put to further prejudice by relegating the matter for a further consideration by the first respondent.
7. I am of the view that Ext.P2 order of suspension is illegal, unreasonable and unjust. An order of suspension, like Ext.P2, would certainly affect the morale of the Headmaster and it would not in any away advance the cause of justice or be a deterrent against the repetition of similar incidents in any school. Taking action against a person who is not alleged to have done anything wrong cannot be countenanced. The only reason stated is WP(C) No.20667/2008 8 failure to make timely report to higher ups. That is not a reason at all since even after the report was submitted, nothing has transpired. On an overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to accept the contentions put forward by the petitioner. Ext.P2 order of suspension is liable to be quashed. I do so.
The Writ Petition is allowed. Ext.P2 order of suspension is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service forthwith. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the mere fact that Ext.P2 order is quashed does not stand in the way of appropriate enquiry being made against the Headmaster. It is made clear that the disposal of this Writ Petition would not stand in the way of appropriate enquiry being made in the matter in accordance with law.
K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE.
cks