Kerala High Court
K.I.Shanidha vs State Of Kerala on 1 July, 2021
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2021 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 10395 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
K.I.SHANIDHA,
HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER (PHYSICAL SCIENCE),
SEETHI SAHIB MEMORIAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
AZHIKODE, KODUNGALLOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 666.
BY ADV P.M.PAREETH
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014.
3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT -680 001.
4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT -680 121.
5 MANAGER, SEETHI SAHIB MEMORIAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
AZHIKODE, KODUNGALLOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT -680 666.
6 REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,
EDAPPALLY RAGHAVAN PILLAI ROAD, DEVANKULANGARA,
ERNAKULAM 682 024.
7 V.A. RAMLATH, HSST (MALAYALAM),
SEETHI SAHIB MEMORIAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
AZHIKODE, KODUNGALLOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT -680 666.
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases
-2-
8 NASEEHA,
HSST (COMPUTER APPLICATION ON DAILY WAGES),
SEETHI SAHIB MEMORIAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
AZHIKODE, KODUNGALLOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680
666.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
SRI.K.A.MANZOOR ALI
SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.07.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).6352/2020,
35870/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases
-3-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2021 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 6352 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
K.I.SHANIDHA,
HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER (PHYSICAL SCIENCE),
SEETHI SAHIB MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL, AZHIKODE,
KODUNGALLOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 666.
BY ADV P.M.PAREETH
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.
3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 001.
4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
IRINJALAKUDA,
THRISUSR DISTRICT-680 121.
5 MANAGER,
SEETHI SAHIB MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL, AZHIKODE,
KODUNGALLOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 666.
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases
-4-
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.M.MANOJ, SR.GP
V.A.MUHAMMED
M.SAJJAD
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.07.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).10395/2020 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases
-5-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2021 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 35870 OF 2019
PETITIONER:
K.I.SHANIDHA,
HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER (PHYSICAL SCIENCE),
SEETHI SAHIB MEMORIAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
AZHIKODE, KODUNGALLOOR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 666.
BY ADV P.M.PAREETH
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.
3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 001.
4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 121.
5 MANAGER,
SEETHI SAHIB MEMORIAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
AZHIKODE, KODUNGALLOOR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 666.
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases
-6-
6 REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,
EDAPPALLY RAGHAVAN PILLAI ROAD, DEVANKULANGARA,
ERNAKULAM - 682 024.
7 V.A.RAMLATH,
HSST (MALAYALAM), SEETHI SAHIB MEMORIAL HIGHER
SECONDARY SCHOOL, AZHIKODE, KODUNGALLOOR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 666.
8 NASEEHA,
HSST (COMPUTER APPLICATION ON DAILY WAGES),
SEETHI SAHIB MEMORIAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
AZHIKODE, KODUNGALLOOR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 666.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.M.MANOJ, SR.GP
SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
SRI.K.A.MANZOOR ALI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.07.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).10395/2020 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases
-7-
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos.10395/2020, 6352/2020, 35870/2019] The petitioner in these three cases - which have been heard and disposed of together on account of the common factual circumstances and the entwined nature of the reliefs sought - is a High School Teacher (HST) working in 'Seethi Sahib Memorial Higher Secondary School', Trissur.
2. Among the afore three Writ Petitions, W.P(C)No.6352/2020 has been filed by the petitioner impugning the orders imposing punishment against her, based on a disciplinary action initiated on the allegation that she had committed various acts of misconduct. As far as W.P(C)No.35870/2019 and W.P(C)No.10395/2020 are concerned, the petitioner has approached this Court impugning the proceedings of the competent Educational Authorities refusing to appoint her 'by transfer' as Higher Secondary School Teacher WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases -8- (HSST) in Computer Applications, solely on the ground that she had already suffered a punishment after disciplinary enquiry.
3. The petitioner asserts that the punishment imposed against her is illegal; and consequently, that denial of appointment to her as an HSST by the Manager, while favouring two other teachers, namely Smt.V.A.Ramlath and Smt.Naseeha, is unlawful and thus prays that she be appointed as HSST in Computer Applications from the date on which the vacancy arose, namely 01.06.2019.
4. I have heard Sri.P.M.Pareeth - learned counsel for the petitioner in these three cases; Sri.Mansoor Ali - learned counsel appearing for Smt.Ramlath and Smt.Naseeha (who have been arrayed as respondents in these three cases); Smt.P.A.Jenzia - learned counsel for the Manager of the School and Sri.P.M.Manoj - learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the official WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases -9- respondents.
5. Sri.P.M.Pareeth commenced the submissions by saying that it is solely because his client had been subjected to an unfair punishment, that she had been denied 'by Transfer' appointment by the Manager of the School. He showed me Ext.P5 in W.P(C)No.35870/2019 communication of the Manager, which states unequivocally that his client is not entitled to be appointed 'by Transfer' as HSST, solely because she had been subjected to a disciplinary enquiry and imposed with a punishment. He, thereafter, pointed out that, in the report along with Ext.P5, the Manager has recorded that, though the petitioner is qualified to be considered for appointment 'by Transfer', she is not deserving the same, because she had behaved in a manner unbecoming of a Teacher and consequently, imposed with a punishment. He, therefore, submitted that if this Court is to WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases -10- find, in W.P(C)No.6352/2020, that the punishment imposed against his client is illegal, then denial of promotion to her would axiomatically have to be declared as being unlawful. He, therefore, prayed that W.P(C)No.6352/2020 be heard first.
6. Sri.Pareeth, thereafter, proceeded to show me that the disciplinary action against the petitioner began with Ext.P1 in W.P(C)No.6352/2020, wherein, the allegations made against her were as under:
1. That, while holding the post of Teacher Educator, SSM TTI, Azhikode, you failed to perform to the best of your abilities the teaching and other items of work entrusted to you.
2. That, you being the first Assistant, failed to assist the principal in the teaching curriculum activities and to maintain the general discipline of the school.
3. That you behaved towards your colleagues and the principal of the institution in the manner grossly unbecoming of a teacher.
4. That your said actions tantamount to grave dereliction of duty, disobedience and official misconduct warranting disciplinary action as contemplated under Ch.XIVA Kerala Education Rules 1959.
He submitted that when Ext.P1 Memo of Charges WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases -11- was thus given to his client, she responded to it through Ext.P2 explanation and obviously, therefore, an enquiry ought to have been conducted by the competent Educational Authority, as per Rule 75, Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules (KER for short). He then proceeded to say that, even though the Manager requested for such an enquiry, the District Educational Officer (DEO), Irinjalakkuda, did not conduct it under Rule 75, as is required under the KER, but settled Ext.P3 proceedings without finding any of the allegations in Ext.P1 to have been found proved, but then impelling certain other allegations against the petitioner and directing the Manager to take disciplinary action, after obtaining necessary permission from the Authorities.
7. Sri.P.M.Pareeth vehemently asserted that Ext.P2 cannot be construed to be a report under Rule 75, Chapter XIVA of the KER, based on Ext.P1 WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases -12- show-cause notice. He added that, perhaps being fully aware of this, the Manager proceeded to conduct an enquiry of his own, as if he was competent to act under Rule 75 of the KER and then issued Ext.P4, holding the charges in Ext.P1 to have been proved against his client, thus awarding a punishment of withholding two increments without cumulative effect.
8. Sri.P.M.Pareeth submitted that since the entire process leading to Ext.P4 was vitiated from the stand point of KER, his client had no other option but to approach the Deputy Director of Education, Trissur, by preferring a Statutory Appeal, namely Ext.P5 produced along with WP(C)No.6352/2020; but that the said Authority, instead of considering the same on its merits, kept it pending and in blatant violation of his statutory obligations, directed the DEO to ratify Ext.P4 punishment imposed by the Manager. He WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases -13- referred to Ext.P7 order of the Deputy Director of Education (DDE) to substantiate the afore and then added that the DEO consequently, ratified Ext.P4 through Ext.P8 order of his and that the DDE, almost as a consequential order, rejected Ext.P5 appeal without assigning any reason. He submitted that his client, therefore, preferred a Statutory Revision before the Government, namely Ext.P10 in WP(C)No.6352/2020 and that when the same was not considered by them, she approached this Court to obtain Ext.P11 judgment produced along with WP(C)No.6352/2020, whereby, Government was directed to consider the said Revision within a time frame.
9. Sri.P.M.Pareeth finally submitted that in spite of the specific contentions impelled by his client, the Government issued Ext.P12 order, remitting the matter to the Manager, not with respect to the disciplinary enquiry, but only as WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases -14- to the nature of punishment imposed; and that the Manager has now issued Ext.P13 in the said Writ Petition, imposing a punishment of withholding one increment without cumulative effect. Mr.Pareeth thus vehemently submitted that Exts.P12 and P13 orders in WP(C)No.6352/2020 are illegal and prayed that same be set aside; and consequentially that other two Writ Petitions be allowed, directing the competent Authorities, including the Manager, to appoint his client - Smt.Shanidha 'by Transfer' to the vacancy available in the year 2019.
10. Smt.P.A.Jenzia-learned counsel appearing for the Manger of the school, replied to the afore submissions of Mr.Pareeth by saying that the imputations against Smt.Shanidha were extremely grave and totally unbecoming of her stature as a Teacher in the school. She tried to impress upon this Court, by referring to the various allegations made in Exts.P1, P3 and P4 in WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases -15- WP(C)No.6352/2020, that Smt.Shanidha was prone to insubordination, bad behaviour, irreverence to Authority as also to certain other conduct not suited to a teacher. She, therefore, submitted that the Manager was completely within his competence to have proposed punishment through Ext.P4 in WP(C)No.6352/2020 and that he fairly modified it, through Ext.P13 in the said Writ Petition, in compliance with the directions of the Government. She concluded her submissions by saying that even the Government in Ext.P12 found the allegations against the petitioner to be warranting a punishment and did not interfere with the disciplinary action, but only directed the Manager to reduce the same, thus making it indubitable that she was not entitled to be appointed 'by Transfer' to the vacancy available in the year 2019. She, therefore, prayed that all these Writ Petitions be dismissed. WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases -16-
11. Sri.Mansoor Ali - learned counsel appearing for the other two teachers, namely Smt.Ramlath and Smt.Naseeha, adopted most of the submissions of Smt.P.A.Jenzia, supplementing it by asserting that no school can countenance the conduct of Smt.Shanidha and therefore, that the Manager was well within his competence to have imposed a suitable punishment upon her. He added that in the year 2019, there were two vacancies available, to which Smt.Ramlath was appointed 'by Transfer' and Smt.Naseeha directly. He submitted that their appointments have now been approved by the competent Educational Authorities and affirmed by the Government in Ext.P11 order produced in WP(C)No.35870/2019; and therefore, prayed that these Writ Petitions be dismissed.
12. I have given a great amount of thought to the opposing submissions made on behalf of the parties as afore.
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases -17-
13. As rightly stated by Sri.P.M.Pareeth, this Court is first enjoined to consider whether the punishment imposed upon the petitioner was valid and proper, since on it would pirouette the question whether it was justified on the part of the Manager to have denied her appointment 'by Transfer' in the year 2019. This is indubitable because, as is evident from Ext.P5 in WP(C)No.35870/2019, the petitioner had been denied promotion solely because she had been imposed with a punishment of withholding one increment without cumulative effect.
14. I, therefore, first propose to consider the merits of WP(C)No.6352/2020.
15. The records of this case reveal that petitioner was asked to show cause to the allegations extracted earlier in this judgment and that she did so through Ext.P2. Upon receipt of Ext.P2, the Manager appears to have found it to be WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases -18- unsatisfactory and to have requested an enquiry under Rule 75 Chapter XIVA of the KER, to be conducted by the competent Educational Authority. Going by the provisions of this Rule, the Educational Authority ought to have conducted an enquiry and to have concluded it, after recording its findings on each of them. It is only thereafter that the Manager could have imposed a penalty as specified in sub-rules (iv) and (viii) of Rule 75, Chapter XIVA of the KER.
16. However, when one goes through Ext.P3 order, it is rather unmistakable that the DEO, Irinjalakkuda, did not answer any of the charges mentioned in Ext.P1, though he records the depositions and testimonies of the various witnesses. Interestingly, he does not find any of the allegations in Ext.P1 to be proved, but digresses into certain other aspects and new allegations against the petitioner, pending such WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases -19- enquiry. He has held in Ext.P3 - without finding the petitioner to be guilty of any of the charges in Ext.P1 show-cause - that she has irreverence for the Educational Authorities; that she had illegally video-recorded the enquiry proceedings; that she had refused to subscribe her signature to the enquiry proceedings etc, thus concluding that her actions are not suitable for a teacher, who is responsible for forging the next generation. After finding as afore, the DEO, in Ext.P3, directed the Manager to initiate a disciplinary enquiry, for which he was also directed to take necessary permission.
17. It is thus luculent that Ext.P3 cannot satisfy the attributes of an enquiry report under Rule 75, Chapter XIVA of the KER; and in fact, on a close reading of it, it can leave no doubt that what the DEO intended was that the Manager must initiate new disciplinary action based on a fresh WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases -20- show-cause notice against the petitioner on the allegations mentioned in the said proceedings.
18. However, the Manager appears to have misunderstood Ext.P3 completely and he proceeded unilaterally to conduct a separate enquiry, purportedly under Rule 75 of the KER, on the allegations contained in Ext.P1 show-cause notice. He thus prepared Ext.P4 report - which is a very detailed one, containing the examination of the witnesses and assessment of their testimonies - thus finding the petitioner guilty of all charges in Ext.P1 and imposing her punishment of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect. Ext.P4 makes it without doubt that finding of guilt has been entered into, not by any of the Educational Authorities but by the Manager, thus he empowering himself to impose a punishment abovementioned.
19. Without need for much expatiation, it is WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases -21- clear that Ext.P4 could not normally have obtained imprimatur unless the Manager was able to convince the Educational Authorities that imposition of punishment as made by him was as per the statutory scheme of Rule 75, Chapter XIVA of the KER.
20. However, even though the petitioner challenged Ext.P4 before the DDE through Ext.P5, he chose not to issue orders on it, but directed the DEO, through Ext.P7, to ratify Ext.P4, which was then done by the said Authority through Ext.P8. Very strangely, after Ext.P8 order was issued by the DEO, the DDE rejected Ext.P5 appeal through Ext.P9.
21. Justifiably, therefore, the petitioner filed a Revision before the Government, invoking Rule 92, Chapter XIVA of the KER; and when it was not decided within time, she obtained Ext.P11 judgment from this Court. It is, thereafter, that Government issued Ext.P12 order in WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases -22- WP(C)No.6352/2020, confirming the disciplinary action against the petitioner, finding that her contentions are without merits; but holding the punishment imposed to be disproportionate, thus directing the Manager to reconsider the same. The Manager, thereafter, issued Ext.P13 order, imposing the punishment of withholding one increment without cumulative effect.
22. In the afore factual scenario, I am constrained to opine that Government has not considered any of the contentions of the petitioner in its proper perspective. The question whether Ext.P3 is a proper enquiry report under Rule 75, Chapter XIVA of the KER; whether the Manager was competent to issue a proceeding like Ext.P4 and whether the Manager would have imposed a punishment without obtaining concurrence from the Educational Authorities have been left without being considered, in any manner, by the Government WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases -23- and other Educational Authorities.
23. More serious is the turn of events in this case when the DDE, before whom the petitioner had preferred Ext.P5 appeal against Ext.P4, directed the DEO to ratify Ext.P4 and then, when such ratification was granted by the said Authority through Ext.P8, rejected Ext.P5 appeal through Ext.P9. It is unfortunate that the Government did not see any of these aspects, but still proceeded to issue Ext.P12 order merely saying that the allegations against the petitioner are proved, though not serious enough to warrant a punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative effect; and consequently directing the Manager to impose a lesser one - which he did through Ext.P13 order.
24. It is, therefore, without any doubt in my mind that the entire matter relating to the disciplinary action against the petitioner will WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases -24- have to be reconsidered by the Government.
25. Having concluded as afore with respect to W.P.(C)No.6352 of 2020, I must now consider how the other two writ petitions will have to be dealt with.
26. As I have already indicated above, the sole reason why the Manager has refused to appoint the petitioner - Smt.K.I.Shanidha, 'by transfer' to one of the available vacancies of HSST in the School in the year 2019, is because she had already been imposed with the punishment as narrated above. This is clearly demonstrated in Ext.P5 in W.P.(C)No.35870 of 2019, wherein, it is also recorded that the petitioner had the minimum qualification for being so appointed, but disqualified because of the punishment imposed.
27. At this point, I must also record one of the submissions of Smt.P.A.Jenzia, learned counsel for the Manager, that the petitioner - WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases -25- Smt.K.I.Shanidha was denied appointment 'by transfer' in the year 2019 also because she was not fully qualified and because she did not produce the relevant documents before the committee. However, this argument is completely belied by Ext.P5 proceedings of the Manager himself, wherein, as I have already said above, he has unequivocally recorded that the petitioner had the minimum qualification for being appointed, but is not deserving to be considered because of her alleged proved misconduct.
28. It is thus apodictic that if the Government is to find that the punishment imposed against the petitioner - Smt.K.I.Shanidha is perverse and capricious, then the competent Authority must consider her claim for appointment 'by transfer' to one of the vacancies of HSST in the School in the year 2019.
29. In W.P.(C)No.35870 of 2019, the petitioner WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases -26- has specifically challenged Ext.P11 order of the Government dated 30.11.2019, whereby the appointment of Smt.Ramlath has been found to be proper.
30. As far as W.P.(C)No.10395 of 2020 is concerned, the petitioner challenges Exts.P14 and P15 orders, as per which, Smt.Naseeha has been appointed directly as an HSST in Computer Application in the School in question; as also Ext.P16 order granting approval to the appointment of Smt.Ramlath.
31. That said, Ext.P11 in W.P.(C)No.35870 of 2019 has been issued by the Government approving the appointment of Smt.Ramlath, again on the basis that the petitioner - Smt.K.I.Shanidha has suffered a punishment. It is on the same basis that Ext.P14 appointment order of Smt.Naseeha has been approved by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Ernakulam. It is also pertinent that WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases -27- both Exts.P15 and P16 in W.P.(C)No.10395 of 2020 contains a condition that this will be subject to the disputes raised by Smt.K.I.Shanidha and any other deficiencies had been found in future.
32. In such circumstances, it is clear that this Court cannot grant imprimatur to the orders impugned in W.P.(C)No.35870 of 2019 and W.P. (C)No.10395 of 2020, until the Government takes a final decision relating to the punishment of the petitioner - Smt.K.I.Shanidha. Obviously, therefore, if the Government is to find that the punishment against Smt.K.I.Shanidha is illegal, then they will have to reconsider Ext.P11 in W.P. (C)No.35870 of 2019 and the competent Authorities must then review their action recorded in Exts.P15 and P16 in W.P.(C)No.10395 of 2020.
In the conspectus of the above, these writ petitions are ordered as under:
(a) W.P.(C).No.6352 of 2020
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases -28- is allowed and Exts.P12 and P13 are set aside; with a consequential direction to the Government to reconsider Ext.P10 Revision of the petitioner - Smt.K.I.Shanidha, after affording her, as also the Manager of the School, an opportunity of being heard - either physically or through video conferencing - thus culminating in an appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.(b) W.P.(C)No.35870 of 2019
and W.P.(C)No.10395 of 2020 are disposed of, directing the Government to reconsider Ext.P11 in W.P. WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases -29- (C)No.35870 of 2019, should they find that the punishment against Smt.K.I.Shanidha is improper. In such event and consequently, the Regional Director of Education, Ernakulam will reconsider Exts.P15 and P16 orders of approval given to Smt.Ramlath and Smt.Naseeha, as per law. I, however, clarify that in such scenario, if any orders to the detriment of Smt.Ramlath or Smt.Naseeha is proposed, then they shall also be heard, apart from Smt.K.I.Shanidha and the Manager, by the competent Authorities, including the Government and the resultant orders will be issued after following due procedure, expressly in terms of the provisions of the KER.
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases -30-
(c) After the afore, if the Government finds that the punishment against the petitioner -
Smt.K.I.Shanidha is improper and that she is entitled to be appointed 'by transfer' to one of the vacancies in the year 2019, it will also be decided by the competent Educational Authorities how Smt.Ramlath and Smt.Naseeha can be accommodated, subject to the availability of vacancies.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE RR/akv WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases -31- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6352/2020 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES AND STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS DATED 4.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENCE DATED 3.11.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 23.11.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.110/SSMTTI/2017 DATED 3.5.2019.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 21.5.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.5.2019 IN WP(C) NO.14469/2019.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 25.7.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.8.2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.8.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 22.8.2019 SUBMITTED BY WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases -32- THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.9.2019 IN WPC 24944/2019.
EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.755/2020/GEDN DATED 14.2.2020. EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE PROCEEDING NO.110/2017/SSMTTI DATED 24.2.2020 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS :
EXT.R5a TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.G.O(MS)NO.14/2019/GEN EDN.DATED
6.2.2019.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases -33- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35870/2019 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 04/04/2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MSC (INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY) DATED 30/7/2015 IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 03/05/2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT AWARDING THE PENALTY OF WITHHOLDING TWO INCREMENTS WITHOUT CUMULATIVE EFFECT.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27/05/2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THEN DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28/06/2019 TOGETHER WITH PROCEEDINGS DATED 28/06/2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 30/06/2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN THE MADHYAMAM DAILY DATED 30/06/2019.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10/07/2019 IN W.P.(C) NO.18847/2019.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.ACD.A2/151214/2019/HSE DATED 18/11/2019 ISSUED BY THE JOINT DIRECTOR WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases -34- OF GENERAL EDUCATION.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 22/08/2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.5255/2019/GEDN. DATED 30/11/2019.
EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.235(1)/2009/GEDN. DATED 05/12/2009.
EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.16/2019/SSMHSS/DATED 13.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P16 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P5 EXHIBIT P17 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P6 EXHIBIT P18 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P8 EXHIBIT P19 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE POSTAL COVER ENCLOSING THE EXHIBIT P11 ORDER WHICH WAS DELIVERED ON THE PETITIONER ON 24.12.2019.
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases -35- RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS :
EXT.R5a TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.G.O(MS)NO.14/2019/GEN EDN.DATED
6.2.2019.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases -36- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10395/2020 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 04.04.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MSC INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DATED 30.7.2015 IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 03.052019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT AWARDING THE PENALTY OF WITHHOLDING TWO INCREMENTS WITHOUT CUMULATIVE EFFECT.
EXHIBIT P3 (A) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.
755/2020/GEDN DATED 14.2.2020.
EXHIBIT P3 (B) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 24.2.2020 ISSUED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27.05.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THEN DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.06.2019 TOGETHER WITH PROCEEDINGS DATED 28.06.2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 30.06.2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN THE MADHYAMAM DAILY DATED 30.06.2019.
WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases -37- EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DAD 10.07.2019 IN WPC NO. 18847/2019. EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.
ACD.A2/151214/2019/HSE DATED 18.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 22.08.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE G.O.(RT), NO.
5255/2019/GEDN DATED 30.11.2019. EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GO (MS) NO.
235(1)2009 /GEDN DATED 05.12.2009. EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 13.08.2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT APPOINTING THE 8TH RESPONDENT AS HSST COMPUTER APPLICATION).
EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 26.02.2020 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P16 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 05.02.2020 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P17 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED WP(C) NO. 10395/2020 & Con.Cases -38- 21.11.2019 IN WPC NO. 31498/2019. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS :
EXT.R5a TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.G.O(MS)NO.14/2019/GEN EDN.DATED
6.2.2019.
EXT.R5b TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B5/8833/2019
DATED 03.07.2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE