Kerala High Court
K.S.Shinumol vs The State Of Kerala on 24 April, 2017
Author: P.V.Asha
Bench: P.V.Asha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2017/11TH JYAISHTA, 1939
WP(C).No. 16025 of 2017 (C)
----------------------------
PETITIONER :
---------------------
K.S.SHINUMOL,
W/O. CHANDRA BABU, AGED 49 YEARS,
HEADMISTRESS (UNDER SUSPENSION),
VISWA BHARATHI S.N HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
NEEZHOOR, KOTTAYAM (RESIDING AT KUNNANKULATHIL,
THEKKUMBHAGOM, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT).
BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
SRI.M.SAJJAD
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 014
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 001
4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
KADUTHURUTHY,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 604
5. THE MANAGER,
VISWA BHARATHI S.N.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
NEEZHOOR, KADUTHURUTHY, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 504
R1 TO R4 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. MARY BEENA JOSEPH
R5 BY SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN,SENIOR ADVOCATE
ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 01-06-2017,ALONG WITH WP(C).NO.18328 OF 2017, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C).No. 16025 of 2017 (C)
-----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ORDER OF THE MANAGER
DATED 24.04.2017
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
MANAGER DATED 08.05.2017
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DATED 10.05.2017
EXHIBIT P3(A): COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B2/5631/2017 DATED 08/05/2017 OF THE
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
EXHIBIT P3(B): COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE
GOVERNMENT BY THE MANAGER ALONG WITH STAY PETITION
DATED 17/05/2017, WITHOUT ANNEXURE
EXHIBIT P3(C): COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 17/05/2017
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 1982 KLT 229
DATED 17.02.1982
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
-----------------------------------------
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
sts
P.V.ASHA, J.
-----------------------------------------------------
W.P(C) No.16025 of 2017-C
and
W.P(C) No.18328 of 2017-M
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of June, 2017
JUDGMENT
Writ Petition No.16025 of 2017 is filed by the Headmistress, who is placed under suspension by the Manager, who is the petitioner in W.P(C) No.18328 of 2017. The Headmistress filed the above writ petition seeking a declaration that the order of suspension issued on 24.04.2017 is no longer in existence, since the Deputy Director of Education issued an order on 8.05.2017 refusing to grant permission for extension of suspension beyond 15 days and at the same time directed the reinstatement of the Headmistress. The Manager is challenging the order of the Deputy Director as well as that of Government directing re-instatement, issued on 8.5.2017, 27.5.2017 and 29.05.2017. As both the writ petitions relate to the same issue, the writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. The documents referred to herein are as described in W.P.(C) No.18328 of 2017.
W.P(C) Nos.16025 of 2017-C & 18328 of 2017-M 2
2. The Manager placed the headmistress under suspension as per Ext.P1 order dated 24.4.2017 for 15 days referring to various irregularities and lapses on her part including those in the conduct of Vidyajyothi Programme stating that a detailed inquiry was required into those. Ext.P1 order along with the entire records was forwarded to the District Educational Officer with a request for permission to continue her under suspension beyond 15 days. The District Educational Officer forwarded the same to the Deputy Director of Education. The Deputy Director of Education thereupon passed Ext.P7 order denying permission saying that the enquiry revealed that there are no circumstances warranting suspension of the Headmistress and directing the re-instatement of the Headmistress.
3. The Manager had taken up the matter before Government and even though a stay was granted against the direction of the Deputy Director of Education on 17.05.2017, the revision petition was rejected on 29.05.2017, as per Ext.P9 order dated 27.05.2017, Government directed the Deputy Director of Education to re-instate Smt.Shinumol (the Headmistress) and called for a report from him after conducting a detailed enquiry W.P(C) Nos.16025 of 2017-C & 18328 of 2017-M 3 into the matter. Pursuant to this the Deputy Director issued Ext. P10 order dated 29.05.2017, directing the Manager to re-instate the petitioner forthwith, pending the detailed inquiry as ordered by the Government.
4. The case of the Manager is that the Deputy Director of Education did not conduct any preliminary investigation before issuing Ext.P7 order denying permission and directing the re- instatement of the Headmistress, as contemplated in Rule 67(8), and that in the absence of such an enquiry Ext.P7 order is not sustainable. In support of this contention, the learned Senior Counsel relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kurien v. A.E.O, Kolencherry [1984 KLT 381].
5. In this context the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Manager pointed out Ground (e) in the writ petition filed by the Headmistress which reads as follows:
"(e): The Deputy Director of Education, Kottayam has not made preliminary investigation into the grounds of suspension hitherto, for want of reporting and request from the Manager".
6. The case of the Headmistress is that the suspension was for 15 days. As there is no sanction from the Deputy Director of Education for continuance of suspension, she was liable to be W.P(C) Nos.16025 of 2017-C & 18328 of 2017-M 4 re-instated, as the period of suspension was over by 9.05.2017. It is also her case that the Manager did not forward the order of suspension to the Deputy Director of Education, who is the competent authority; on the other hand the request was made before the District Educational Officer. Therefore, she filed writ petition seeking re-instatement. The learned Counsel for the Headmistress relying on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Manager, S.N.V.High School v. State of Kerala [1982 KLT 229] argued that once the Deputy Director of Education issued the order, refusing permission, the suspension ordered by the Manager cannot have any effect and on expiry of 15 days of the order of suspension, the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement. The order passed by the Government thereafter will not enable the Manager to keep the petitioner under suspension once the 15 days period is over. Moreover, Government also directed her re-instatement and the Manager has not passed any other order placing the Headmistress under suspension.
7. I heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Manager and the learned Counsel appearing for the W.P(C) Nos.16025 of 2017-C & 18328 of 2017-M 5 Headmistress as well as the learned Government Pleader and considered the pleadings and contentions.
8. From the order Ext.P7 of the Deputy Director of Education passed on 8.05.2017, it can be seen that the District Educational Officer has forwarded the order of suspension along with the request of the Manager seeking permission. Even though the Deputy Director of Education has stated in the order that an investigation was conducted and the contentions of the Manager were found baseless, the Headmistress herself admits in ground e of her writ petition that no investigation was conducted by the Deputy Director of Education.
9. Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIVA, which is the relevant provision relating to suspension of teachers and its ratification, reads as follows:
"(8) Where the orders of suspension is made by the manager he shall on the same day report the matter together with reasons for the suspension to the Educational Officer and where the suspension is in respect of Headmaster of Secondary school and Training school such reports shall be sent to the Deputy Director (Education) also in addition to the Educational Officer. The Deputy Director (Education) if the suspension is in respect of Headmaster of a Secondary school or Training School and the Educational Officer in other cases shall thereupon make a preliminary investigation into the grounds of suspension. If on such investigations the authority is satisfied that there was no valid grounds for the suspension he may direct the Manager to reinstate the teacher with effect from the date of suspension, and W.P(C) Nos.16025 of 2017-C & 18328 of 2017-M 6 thereupon the teacher shall forthwith be reinstated by the Manager. If the teacher is not actually reinstated the teacher shall be deemed to have been on duty. It shall then be open to the Department to disburse the pay and allowances to the teacher as if he were not suspended and recover the amount so disbursed from the Manager. If on such investigation it is found that there are valid grounds for such suspension permission may be given to the Manager to place the teacher under suspension beyond 15 days, if necessary. The authority mentioned above shall pass orders permitting the suspension or otherwise within the said 15 days."
10. Therefore, a preliminary investigation into the grounds of suspension is mandatory before orders are passed either refusing or granting permission for extension of suspension beyond 15 days or while issuing orders of re- instatement even before that as provided in Rule 67(8) with or without ratification of suspension ordered by the Manager and as held in Kurian's case (supra). In the judgment in Manager, S.N.V.High School (supra) relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, a preliminary investigation was conducted and the suspension was ratified for 15 days from the date of suspension. It was held that the Manager's power to place a teacher under suspension is only for 15 days and in the absence of sanction from educational authorities the teacher was entitled to be re-instated from 14.4.1981.
11. As in the present case it is the admitted case of both W.P(C) Nos.16025 of 2017-C & 18328 of 2017-M 7 the parties that there was no preliminary investigation, I find that the Deputy Director of Education has to be directed to conduct a preliminary investigation.
12. In the result:
i) Writ Petition No.18328 of 2017 is disposed of directing the Deputy Director of Education to conduct a preliminary enquiry on the request of the Manager to grant extension of suspension beyond 15 days as contemplated under Rule 67(8), within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment with notice to all parties. Exts.P7 and P10 orders and the direction to re-instate the Headmistress in Ext.P9 letter of Government are quashed.
ii) Writ Petition No.16025 of 2017 is dismissed.
Sd/-
(P.V.ASHA, JUDGE) rtr/