K.DEVADASAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This original petition has been filed by the applicant in OA No.1059/2019 challenging order dated 31-10-2019 by which his application had been dismissed. Disciplinary proceedings had been taken against the petitioner on an allegation of attempted sexual abuse to a minor child while he was a Primary Department Teacher in Government L.P. School, Mamankara. After issuing memo of charges along with statement of allegations, an enquiry was conducted. It was found that the charges against the delinquent teacher had been proved. Pursuant to that he was dismissed from service. However he challenged the order by approaching this court by filing OP No.13338/1998. By judgment dated 04-12-2007, this court had set aside the order of dismissal on the ground that Kerala Public Service Commission was not consulted before issuing the said order. Accordingly the matter was remitted back. Pursuant to the said order the matter was again considered and finally after consultation with the Kerala Public Service Commission, the petitioner was again removed from service by imposing the said punishment with effect from 03-10-1994. The said order of removal from service was being challenged.

(2.) The Tribunal had considered the matter and held that enquiry report cannot be challenged as it is barred by the principles of constructive res judicata and that apart it cannot be said that the punishment is in any way disproportionate to the charges proved against him. Apparently this is a case in which the petitioner was issued with a memo of charges on a grave allegation of attempted sexual abuse to a minor child. He was working as a teacher during the relevant time. What we find is that Government has complied with all the procedural requirements before ordering dismissal of the delinquent teacher. At a time when the Kerala Public Service Commission was not consulted before issuing the order of dismissal, this court had interfered, and thereafter after consulting the KPSC, the competent authority had issued the order of dismissal. Under such circumstances, where all procedural formalities have been complied with, the Tribunal was justified in not interfering with the said order of dismissal.

(3.) Apparently the order of dismissal was issued on 08-03-2010 and according to the petitioner he was not aware of it. In any case, after having gone through the order of dismissal, it is rather clear that the Government had considered the entire aspects of the matter and has found that the allegation raised stands proved. We do not think that we should be justified in interfering with the same. Under such circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.