ABDUL LATHEEF Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the manager of a higher secondary school, who initiated disciplinary proceedings against the 4th respondent, who is a Lab Assistant in the petitioner's school. Charge sheet was issued and the same was forwarded to the 2nd respondent-Director of Higher Secondary Education, for conducting enquiry. The Director conducted an enquiry and passed Ext. P9 order. In Ext. P9 order, after finding the 4th respondent guilty of the misconducts alleged against him, the Director himself imposed the punishment of warning on the 4th respondent and also directed that the period of suspension shall be treated as eligible leave. The petitioner is challenging that part of Ext. P9 order, whereby the Director himself imposed the punishment on the 4th respondent and directed to treat the suspension period as eligible leave. According to the petitioner, the disciplinary authority is the manager of the school and the power to impose punishment and to decide as to how the period of suspension has to be treated is, in the first instance, on the manager. Therefore, the Director could not have by himself imposed on the 4th respondent, punishment also and directed how to treat the suspension period. The 1st respondent seeks to justify Ext. P9 order by filing a counter-affidavit.

(2.) I have heard all parties. The 1st respondent tries to sustain Ext. P9 based on the Kerala Education Rules (KER). If the KER is applicable to Higher Secondary Schools, then as per the KER, the power to impose punishment is on the manager. The only condition is that, that can only be with the prior approval from the educational authorities. Even if the KER is not applicable, primarily the power to impose punishment is on the disciplinary authority, which in the case is the manager of the school. That being so, that part of Ext. P9, whereby the Director himself imposes the punishment of warning on the 4th respondent and directs that the period of suspension be treated as eligible leave, is clearly unsustainable. Accordingly, that part of Ext. P9 which does the above is quashed. The manager shall now, after giving the 4th respondent an opportunity of being heard, forward his proposal for punishment to the 2nd respondent and also his proposal as to how to treat the suspension period, to the 2nd respondent for approval. On receipt of the same, the 2nd respondent shall pass appropriate orders thereon and the petitioner may take further steps after affording an opportunity of being head on the punishment to the 4th respondent.