Kerala High Court
The Manager vs The Director General Of Education on 12 August, 2020
Bench: A.M.Shaffique, P Gopinath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1942
WP(C).No.10386 OF 2020(W)
PETITIONER:
THE MANAGER
SANATANA DHARMA VIDYASALA SCHOOLS,
REGISTERED OFFICE, BESANT HALL,
SANATANA DHARMA VIDYASALA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN CODE - 688 001.
BY ADV. SRI.ARUN CHANDRAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN CODE - 695 014.
2 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN CODE - 688 011.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN CODE - 688 001.
4 S.VENU
HSA SANSKRIT (UNDER ORDER OF SUSPENSION),
NEELAMANA, VADAKKE NADA, KALARKODE,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN CODE - 688 003.
R1-3 BY ADV.SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH-SR. G.P.
R4 BY ADV. K.JAJU BABU (SR.)
R4 BY ADV. SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-
07-2020, ALONG WITH WA.760/2020, WP(C).10875/2020(H), THE COURT
ON 12-08-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.10386/2020 & conn.cases
-:2:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1942
WA.No.760 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C) 10386/2020(W) OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA DATED 5/6/2020
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
THE MANAGER, SANATANA DHARMA VIDYASALA SCHOOLS
REGISTERED OFFICE, BESANT HALL, SANATANA DHARMA
VIDYASALA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ALAPPUZHA,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT DISTRICT 688 001.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
SRI.ARUN CHANDRAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 014.
2 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 688 011.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 688 001.
4 S. VENU,
HSA (SANSKRIT), (UNDER ORDERS OF SUSPENSION)
WP(C) No.10386/2020 & conn.cases
-:3:-
NEELAMANA, VADAKKE NADA, KALARKODE,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 688 03.
R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.)
R4 BY ADV. SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI
R1 TO R3 BY ADV.SRI.ANOTNY MUKKATH,
SR.GOVT.PLEADER
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-07-
2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).10386/2020(W), WP(C).10875/2020(H),
THE COURT ON 12-08-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.10386/2020 & conn.cases
-:4:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1942
WP(C).No.10875 OF 2020(H)
PETITIONERS:
S.VENU
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. N. SANKARAN POTTI,
H.S.A (SANSKRIT (UNDER SUSPENSION)
S.D.V GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
RESIDING AT NEELA MANA,
PALLANA P.O, ALAPPUZHA 690 515
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.)
SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI
SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALAL
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
ALAPPUZHA 688 001
3 THE MANAGER,
SDV SCHOOLS,
WP(C) No.10386/2020 & conn.cases
-:5:-
ALAPPUZHA 688 001
R1-2 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH
R3 BY ADV. SRI.ARUN CHANDRAN
R3 SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24-07-2020, ALONG WITH WA.760/2020, WP(C).10386/2020(W),
THE COURT ON 12-08-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.10386/2020 & conn.cases
-:6:-
JUDGMENT
WP(C) No.10386/2020, WA No.760/2020 & WP(C) No. 10875/2020 Dated this the 12th day of August, 2020 Shaffique, J.
WA No. 760/2020 has been filed by the Manager of Sanatana Dharma Vidyasala Schools challenging an interim order dated 5/6/2020 in WP(C) No. 10386/2020 by which the learned Single Judge did not stay the operation of Exts.P13 and P14 orders issued by the educational authorities revoking the suspension of a teacher. The teacher has filed WP(C) No. 10875/2020 seeking a direction to implement orders passed by the educational authorities to reinstate him in service without prejudice to the disciplinary action taken against him. While hearing the above matter, we have called for the writ petition and a connected case and as agreed by the learned counsel appearing on either side, all the matters are disposed of together.
2. On account of Covid-19 pandemic, we heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and the learned Government WP(C) No.10386/2020 & conn.cases -:7:- Pleader by video conferencing.
3. The short facts of the case are as under:-
We are referring to the documents as shown in WP(C) No. 10386/2020 unless otherwise stated. Sri.S.Venu who was working as HSA (Sanskrit) was suspended from the service of the school as per order dated 4/9/2019 (Ext.P4). The order of suspension was ratified by the District Educational Officer and it was extended beyond the period of 15 days as per proceedings dated 18/9/2019 (Ext.P5) consequent to which Manager also extended the order of suspension (Ext.P6). The allegation against the delinquent officer was that there were complaints against the teacher by certain girl students regarding his behaviour towards them. A report was filed by the Counsellor attached to the District Child Protection Unit, Alappuzha on 5/7/2019 (Ext.P1). The Headmistress of the school reported the matter to the Manager.
In the meantime, the teacher sought anticipatory bail by filing Crl.M.P.No.4849/2019. The same was rejected by the District Court and it is thereafter that proceedings were initiated to suspend the delinquent teacher from service. The teacher filed WP(C) No.10386/2020 & conn.cases -:8:- Bail Application No.6161/2019 before the High Court. This Court having considered the matter granted anticipatory bail on certain conditions which reads as under:-
"i) The petitioner will report before the investigating officer in relation to the present crime at any time between 9 a.m. and 1 p.m on all 2nd and 4th Saturdays for next four months and thereafter he will appear before the investigating officer, as and when directed by the said officer.
ii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail.
iii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation.
(iv) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when required in that connection.
(v) The petitioner shall not influence witness or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner, whatsoever.
(vi) The petitioner shall not visit or go anywhere near to the residence or educational institution of the minor victim girl.
(vii) The Investigating Officer or the District Police Chief, Alappuzha may make a request to the Manager of the School as well as to the DEO to examine whether the petitioner could be given the responsibility to teach only in the boys section of the school and not in the girls section, until the conclusion of the trial, if that is administratively feasible, so that the petitioner is kept away from the teaching responsibilities, where the minor victim girl is now studying. If such a work arrangement is administratively feasible, then the Manager and Educational authorities should ensure that the above said directives of this Court and that of the Police authorities are WP(C) No.10386/2020 & conn.cases -:9:- complied with in its letter and spirit."
4. By a letter dated 11/11/2019, the Manager of the school requested the District Educational Officer to conduct an enquiry into the allegations under memo of charges issued to the teacher on 22/10/2019. By Ext.P10 order dated 31/1/2020, the District Educational Officer informed the Manager that since the delinquent teacher was granted bail and direction had been issued to transfer him to a Boys school, the Manager was called upon to effect the transfer with immediate effect. The Manager by Ext.P11 dated 15/2/2020 informed the District Educational Officer that the delinquent teacher cannot be transferred on account of the reasons stated therein. However, by Ext.P13 dated 27/3/2020, the DEO, Alappuzha informed that on enquiry it was understood that the teacher had not committed any act of misconduct and therefore, there was no reason to continue the suspension. Accordingly, he was directed to be reinstated in service on or before 31/3/2020. This was followed by Ext.P14 dated 7/5/2020 and the petitioner was called upon to comply with the direction to reinstate the teacher to SDV BHSS, Alappuzha within 7 days.
WP(C) No.10386/2020 & conn.cases -:10:-
5. In a statement filed by the 2 nd respondent, DEO, it is stated that the teacher was suspended since he was an accused in Crime No.1286/2019 of Alappuzha North Police Station wherein the offences alleged were u/s 354(A) of I.P.C. and Section 9(f)(m) r/w S.10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Though the order of suspension was extended taking into account the fact that the teacher was granted bail, and the Court observed that the delinquent could be accommodated in a Boys school, orders had been passed in that regard.
6. In WA No.760/2020, the teacher has filed a counter affidavit. According to him, the Manager had issued Ext.P4 dated 4/9/2019 only after coming to know that bail was granted to him. According to him, he is being victimized and harassed since he refused to relinquish his claim for promotion as Headmaster as he was the next person eligible to be promoted as Headmaster. The Manager wanted to promote Smt.T.M.Bindu who was his junior. When a situation arose in the year 2018, and there were attempts to harass him, he had issued a lawyer's notice to the previous Manager on 14/8/2018 [Annexure R4(a)]. The Manager WP(C) No.10386/2020 & conn.cases -:11:- had sent a reply denying the allegations. The teacher filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class on 15/9/2018 which is numbered as CC No.1767/2018. The said Manager resigned on 29/3/2019 and the present Manager took charge. According to him, it is at the instance of the earlier Manager that the present Manager has taken action against him. He further submitted that after keeping him out of service, Smt.Bindu was appointed as Headmistress w.e.f 1/6/2020. He further states that the allegations are false. He is innocent of the allegations. The educational authorities have taken statements of the teachers and parents and found that there is no merit in the allegations so raised.
7. The facts available in the case would disclose that the school counsellor Smt.S.Sreeja had to take awareness class for girl students regarding sexual abuse including the POCSO Act (good touch and bad touch). Certain students complained of misbehaviour by their Sanskrit teacher and according to Smt.Sreeja, it might be intentional or otherwise and therefore by Ext.P1, she requested the District Child Protection Unit to take appropriate action. Ext.P2 is a report by the Headmistress of the WP(C) No.10386/2020 & conn.cases -:12:- school which was sent to the Manager wherein there is a reference to the Child Welfare Committee Officers visiting the students and their parents. It is mentioned that a police officer had come to the school and met the delinquent teacher on 23/7/2019. The teacher went on leave from 23/7/2019 by applying for leave until 31/7/2019. In the meantime, certain officers of Special Branch had also visited the school and sought information. She further stated that the statement of the child, as well as her mother, was recorded u/s 164 and the matter is being inquired by the police. She also stated that the delinquent teacher is absconding and he had attended school only for seven days in July. Ext.P4 is the order of suspension by which the Manager has mentioned about the involvement of the delinquent teacher in Crime No.1238/2019. The orders of suspension and extension were approved by the DEO. Thereafter the Manager has requested the DEO to conduct enquiry into the matter. The enquiry has not been completed in terms of Rule 75 Chapter XIVA of KER. In the meantime, the Deputy Director, General Education had by a communication dated 4/2/2020 has called upon the Manager to complete the enquiry against the teacher concerned. WP(C) No.10386/2020 & conn.cases -:13:- Primarily, the enquiry concerning the allegations made against the teacher has to be completed by the Educational authorities. We are not expressing any opinion on the allegations made in that regard especially since the enquiry has not been completed.
8. The substantial question that arises for consideration in the matter is whether the educational authorities were justified in revoking the suspension and reinstating the delinquent teacher in SDV High School for Boys. The relevant portion of Rule 67 of Chapter XIVA of KER reads thus:-
"67. Suspension: (1) The Manager may at any time place a teacher under suspension
(a) when disciplinary proceedings against him are contemplated or are pending or
(b) when a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial or
(c) when the final orders are pending in the disciplinary proceedings if the authority considers that in the then prevailing circumstances it is necessary, in public interest that the teacher should be suspended from service".
xxxxxx "(6) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule may at any time be revoked by the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order. (7) Whenever a teacher is placed under suspension he shall be paid such subsistence and other allowances as may be allowed to Government servants.
WP(C) No.10386/2020 & conn.cases -:14:- Provided that no teacher shall be placed under suspension by the manager for a continuous period exceeding 15 days without the previous sanction of the Deputy Director (Education) in the case of Headmasters of Secondary Schools and Training school and of the Educational Officer in other cases. (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 ground for the suspension he may direct the manager to reinstate the teacher with effect from the date of suspension and 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 manger. 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 said 15 days.
[(8A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (8) the authority who permitted the suspension beyond 15 days or any higher authority may at any time during the pendency of such WP(C) No.10386/2020 & conn.cases -:15:- suspension, review such permission and if such authority is satisfied that the teacher under suspension has to be reinstated in service for reasons to be recorded in writing cancel the permission already ordered under sub-rule (8) and direct the Manager to reinstate the teacher in service. On such order, the Manager shall reinstate the teacher forthwith failing which the provisions in sub-rule (8) will apply in such case. (9) Cases where teachers suspended by Managers are continuing under suspension for a period exceeding six months have to be reviewed and decision taken soon as to whether they should continue to be under suspension or not. The review shall be conducted by an Officer immediately superior to the Officer who issued permission to place the Officer under suspension beyond 15 days. In cases where the suspension is ordered by the Government or an Officer authorised under section 12A of the Act such review shall be conducted by the respective authority or any authority higher than the one which issued the order of suspension. The review contemplated under this sub-rule will not apply to cases of suspension in pursuance of criminal proceedings in a Court or detention or as a prisoner for debt where sub rule (3) of rule 67 and rule 67A apply."
9. In terms with R.67(1)(a), the Manager can suspend a teacher from service when disciplinary proceedings against him are contemplated or (b) when a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial. Both these situations have arisen in the case. The order of suspension can be extended beyond the period of 15 days with the permission of the WP(C) No.10386/2020 & conn.cases -:16:- Educational Authorities. However, in terms of sub-rule (8A), the educational authority can review such permission on being satisfied that the teacher under suspension has to be reinstated for reasons to be recorded in writing, in which event, the Manager has to reinstate the teacher in service. Sub-rule (9) further provides that if the period of suspension exceeds 6 months, the Educational Authorities will have to review the decision as to whether the suspension should be continued or not.
10. In the case on hand, after the order in the Bail Application, Ext.P10 order has been passed by the District Educational Officer on 31/1/2020 referring to an earlier letter to reinstate the teacher in a boys school and the Manager was called upon to comply with the same. The Manager did not comply with the said request and had sent a reply dated 15/2/2020 (Ext.P11). This was followed by yet another order dated 27/3/2020 (Ext.P13) in which the District Educational Officer has stated that pursuant to the Manager's letter dated 15/2/2020 (Ext.P11), an enquiry was conducted in the school on 13/3/2020. Personal inquiries were made to the teachers and parents. It is opined that no materials were available to establish WP(C) No.10386/2020 & conn.cases -:17:- the allegations against the teacher. They were unable to find out the veracity of the statements given by two students. That apart, it was mentioned that though such an incident is alleged to have taken place in the year 2018, no such complaints were reported during the present year, by any of the parents. The teachers in the school have also stated that the delinquent teacher was not involved in any such incident. Therefore, it was decided that there was no reason to continue the suspension. Accordingly, the order of suspension had been revoked. Pursuant to Ext.P13 order of the DEO, Ext.P14 order dated 7/5/2020 was issued by the DEO directing the appointment of the delinquent teacher to the Boys High School at Alappuzha.
11. In BA No.6161/2019, a learned Single Judge of this Court while observing that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary for the smooth and effective conduct of the investigation observed that the petitioner could be given the responsibility to teach only in the boys section of the school and not in the girls section until the conclusion of the trial if it is administratively feasible. Perhaps it is pursuant to the above observation that the DEO had issued Ext.P10 dated 31/1/2010 to WP(C) No.10386/2020 & conn.cases -:18:- the Manager to transfer the delinquent teacher to the Boys school. When the said request was objected, the Deputy Director of Education had issued Ext.P12 dated 4/2/2020 calling upon the Manager to complete the enquiry.
12. But thereafter separate enquiry was conducted by the DEO as evident from Ext.P13 dated 27/3/2020 in which it was clearly stated that their enquiry did not reveal any evidence to substantiate the allegation against the delinquent teacher.
13. It is apparent that a crime has been registered against the delinquent teacher for having committed the offence under Section 354(A) of I.P.C., S.9(f)(m) r/w S.10 of the POCSO Act and the same is under investigation. The learned Single Judge while deciding BA No.6161/2019 has only issued a direction to the District Police Chief to request the Manager as well as the DEO to examine whether the petitioner could be given the responsibility to teach only in the boys section of the school until the conclusion of the trial if it is administratively feasible. There is no material whatsoever to indicate that the police had made any such request either to the Manager or to the District Educational WP(C) No.10386/2020 & conn.cases -:19:- Officer. The DEO by Ext.P10 order dated 31/1/2020 has suo motu acted upon the said order and directed that the teacher should be transferred to a boys school as per directions of the High Court which is wrong. The DEO did not understand the purport of the direction issued by this Court in BA No.6161/2019. The Manager as well as the educational authorities on the report of the investigating officer should have considered revocation of suspension, which is lacking in the case.
14. But it seems that by Ext.P13 order dated 27/3/2020, an enquiry was conducted by the District Educational Officer, and thereafter it was decided to revoke the suspension. But, nothing has been stated in Ext.P13 order regarding the existence of the crime. Of course, as already pointed out, in terms of Rule 67 (8A) and (9), the Educational Authorities are entitled to review any order of suspension. In this case, the delinquent officer was kept under suspension on 4/9/2019 and by the time Ext.P13 order had been issued, 6 months period had already expired.
15. In fact, the disciplinary action initiated by the Manager has not been enquired into by the educational authorities. It is for WP(C) No.10386/2020 & conn.cases -:20:- the educational authorities to conduct an enquiry in terms with Rule 75 of Chapter XIVA of KER, the relevant provisions of which reads as under:
"75.Procedure for imposing major penalities :- (1) (a) Whenever a complaint is received or on intimation from the authorised Officer as per Section 12(A) is recorded or on consideration of the report of investigation or for other reasons the manager is satisfied that there is prima facie case for taking action against the teacher definite charge or charges shall be framed and communicated to him with the statement of allegations on which each charge is based and of any other circumstances which it is proposed to take into consideration in passing orders on the case. The teacher shall be required to submit within a reasonable time to be specified in that behalf a written statement of his defence and also to state whether he desires to be heard in person. The teacher may on his request be permitted to peruse or take extracts from the records pertaining to the case for the purpose of preparing the written statement; provided the manager may, for reasons to be recorded in writing refuse him such access if in his opinion such records are not strictly relevant to the case or it is not essential in Public interest to allow such access.
After the written statement is received within the time allowed, the manager may if he is satisfied that a formal enquiry should be held into the conduct of the teacher, order that a formal enquiry may be conducted.
(b) The Manager shall forward the records of the case with a request to the Deputy Director (Education) in the case of Headmasters of High Schools and Training Schools or to the WP(C) No.10386/2020 & conn.cases -:21:- Educational officers in other cases, that the formal enquiry may be conducted by that Officer or any other officer not below the rank of an Assistant Educational Officer authorised by that officer or an officer of the department appointed by the Director or Government".
Xxxxx "(10). After the inquiry the inquiring authority shall forward the record of inquiry to the manager.
(11). If the Manager is of opinion that any of the penalities specified in items (iv) to (viii) of rule 65 should be imposed, he shall;
(a) Furnish to the teacher a copy of the report of the Inquiring Authority.
(b) Give him a notice stating the action proposed to be taken in regard to him and calling up on him to submit within a specified time which may not generally exceed one month such representation as he may wish to make against the proposed action provided that such representation, shall be based only on the evidence adduced during the inquiry.
(c) On receipt of the representation, if any and after taking into consideration the representation, final orders shall be passed by the manager imposing the penalty with the previous sanction of the competent authority. (12) The procedure referred to above shall be conducted as expeditiously as the circumstances of the case may permit, particularly one against a teacher under suspension."
16. As far as disciplinary enquiry is concerned, there cannot be any dispute about the fact that it is for the educational authorities to conduct an enquiry. The Manager had already WP(C) No.10386/2020 & conn.cases -:22:- forwarded the memo of charges along with the written statement of the teacher to the Educational Authorities and it is upon them to conduct a formal enquiry as per the procedure laid down. The enquiry has to be completed in all respects within a reasonable time, and thereafter it shall be open for the Manager to take appropriate action in accordance with law. Likewise, if there is any change in circumstances, that is, if any charge sheet is filed against the delinquent teacher, then also Manager is free to act in accordance with law.
17. But taking into account the fact that the Educational Authorities have in Ext.P13 order dated 27/3/2020 decided to revoke the suspension for a valid reason, we are of the view that there is no reason to interfere with Ext.P13. In that view of the matter, learned Single Judge was justified in not interfering with Ext.P13. Ext.P14 is only a consequential order posting the teacher at the Boys School, which also does not require any interference.
18. Learned counsel for the teacher however would submit that the teacher was being victimized especially since the intention of the Manager was to prevent the teacher from being WP(C) No.10386/2020 & conn.cases -:23:- appointed as Headmaster. Specific reference is made to the notice sent by the teacher to the previous Manager which is produced as Annexure R4(a) and the reply to the said notice which is produced as Annexure R4(b). A criminal complaint was also lodged by the teacher against the Manager alleging defamation which is pending consideration. Of course, there is a controversy between the teacher concerned and the management, and a criminal complaint is also pending. But the question to be considered is whether the report of the Counsellor attached to the school and the subsequent factual aspects already narrated is actuated by malafides and intended to victimize and harass the teacher concerned. Of course, in the private complaint filed by the teacher and produced as Annexure R4(c), there is a reference that he was threatened by Sri.N.Neelakandan that the teacher would be implicated under the provisions of POCSO Act. As already stated, a crime is under investigation by the police based on an enquiry conducted by the Child Welfare Committee and report thereof. The statement of the student and her mother was recorded u/s 164 which is mentioned by this Court in the order in BA No.6161/2019. The veracity of WP(C) No.10386/2020 & conn.cases -:24:- such statements has to be considered by the police during the investigation and if it is a false case, the police are free to take appropriate steps in that regard. But as matters stand now, the investigation is proceeding and we will not be justified in adjudicating on the question whether the crime has been initiated at the instance of the former Manager to victimize the petitioner. The crime requires to be investigated and the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Manager requires to be finalised following the procedure prescribed, and on any change in circumstances, Manager will be free to take appropriate action.
Having regard to the aforesaid findings, we are of the view that the aforesaid cases can be disposed of as under:-
(i) WA No.760/2020 is dismissed.
(ii) WP(C) No. 10386/2020 is dismissed. The 2 nd respondent is directed to conduct an enquiry into the allegations raised against the 4th respondent and the enquiry shall be completed within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. After such enquiry, it shall be open for the DEO/Manager to take appropriate action in accordance with the procedure prescribed.
WP(C) No.10386/2020 & conn.cases -:25:-
(iii) WP(C) No. 10875/2020 is allowed. The 3rd respondent shall implement Exts.P5 and P6 orders forthwith, failing which, respondents 1 and 2 shall take appropriate action against the 3 rd respondent.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
Rp JUDGE
WP(C) No.10386/2020 & conn.cases
-:26:-
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10386/2020
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE
COUNCILLOR DATED 05/07/2019 WITH ITS
ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE
HEADMISTRESS OF THE SDV GHS, ALAPPUZHA
DATED 22/08/2019 ALONG WITH ITS TRUE
ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/08/2018
IN CRMP NO.4849/2019.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION
ISSUED BY THE MANAGER DATED 04/09/2019
ALONG WITH ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 18/09/2019 ALONG WITH
ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
MANAGER EXTENDING THE ORDER OF
SUSPENSION OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED
19/09/2019 ALONG WITH ITS TRUE ENGLISH
TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03/09/2019
IN BA NO.6161/2019.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED
06/02/2018 ALONG WITH ITS TRUE ENGLISH
TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST UNDER KERALA
EDUCATION RULES CHAPTER XIV. A RULE
75(1)(B) DATED 11/11/2019 ALONG WITH
OTHER RELEVANT RECORDS AND ITS TRUE
ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE REQUEST AND
THE RELEVANT PAGES RELIES ON BY THE
PETITIONER.
WP(C) No.10386/2020 & conn.cases
-:27:-
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BEARING
DATED 31/01/2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 15/02/2020
ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH
ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE
3RD RESPONDENT DATED 04/02/2020 ALONG
WITH ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY ORDER NO. B2/5574/2019 DATED
27/03/2020 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH
ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B2/5574/2019
DATED 07/05/2020 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
WITH ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE R2(A) TRUE COPY OF HEARING NOTICE ISSUED TO
MANAGER.
WP(C) No.10386/2020 & conn.cases
-:28:-
APPENDIX OF WA NO. 760/2020
APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
ANNEXURE R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED
14.8.2018 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO
THE MANAGER.
ANNEXURE R4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 4.9.2018
ISSUED BY THE MANAGER'S COUNSEL TO THE
PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE R4(C) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT (CC
NO.1767/2018 DATED 15.9.2018 SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,
ALAPPUZHA.
WP(C) No.10386/2020 & conn.cases
-:29:-
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10875/2020
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3-09-2019
IN B.A NO 6161/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF SUSPENSION ORDER 4-09-2019
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B2/5574/2019
DATED 31-1-2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
B2/20456/2019 DATED 4-2-2020 SENT BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B2/5574/2019
DATED 27-3-2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND
THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B2/5574/2019
DATED 7-5-2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT