REV MOTHER ALEXIUS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE St. Joseph Training College for Women at Ernakulam is an institution established and owned by a Roman Catholic Religious Sect known as congregation of Mother of Carmel. Rev. Mother Alexius, who is the petitioner in this case, is the Provincial of that Congregation. She is also the President of the managing board of the College. Smt. Lily Kurien, the fourth respondent, is the Principal of the College. By an order Ext. P-1 dated 23-12-1968, Shri P. K. Rajaretnam, M Sc. , M. Ed. , who was then a teacher in Government service, was deputed as Lecturer in Education to the above College for the period from 111969 to 30 4 1970, subject to the usual terms and conditions of foreign service laid down in Chapter XI in Part I of the Kerala Service Rules. Shri rajaretnam is said to be a highly qualified and efficient teacher; and his deputation was at the request of the petitioner. On 24121969, the Principal sent to the petitioner a copy of a Government Order, Ext. P-2 dated 9121969, which stated that the deputation of Sri. Rajaretnam would be terminated with effect from 111970, and that the Director of Public Instruction would take immediate action to give him a posting on his reversion. Ext. P-2 shows that it was passed on the basis of two representations dated 6-10-1969 and 5-11-1969 made by the Principal to the Government. THE management was not given any opportunity to know what these representations were, before the said order was passed. THE Government did not also communicate it to the management, who only got a copy of it about two weeks after it was passed. Naturally, the management was greatly upset by this extraordinary conduct on the part of the Government. THE sudden removal of an efficient teacher like Sri. Rajaretnam from the staff in the above fashion at the commencement of the third term of the academic year, when the students had to be prepared for the final examination would seriously affect their studies and the reputation of the institution. THE petitioner, therefore, made a representation, Ext. P-3 dated 2512 1969, to the Honourable minister for Education, for cancellation of the above order. She also sent another representation, Ext. P-4 dated 27121969, to the Honourable Minister, soliciting immediate orders. As there was no reply, and the deputation of Sri. Rajaretnam would end on 111970 according to Ext. P-2, this Original Petition was filed on 3112 1969 to quash Ext. P-2, mainly on the ground that it was a mala fide order, passed in naked violation of the principles of natural justice. My learned brother Gopalan Nambiyar, J. admitted the petition stating that, in the face of the allegations of mala fides and the facts disclosed in exts. P-3 and P-4, an investigation was necessary and called for as to the circumstances that led to the passing of the order Ext. P-2. He also granted an interim stay of the above order.

(2.) ON 19 11970, a counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the Government denying the charge of mala fides and seeking to justify the impugned order. The case came for hearing before me on 2211970; and on hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner in part, it appeared to me that it would be unnecessary for me to go into the controversies arising in this case, if the government, after considering the representations, Exts. P-3 and P-4, made by the petitioner, happened to take a decision in favour of the management; and as desired by the learned Government Pleader I posted the case to 9 21970, to enable the Government to dispose of the above representations and further hear the case, if necessary. In the meanwhile, the petitioner made another representation, Ext. P-7 dated 22 11970, to the Honourable Minister for education, stating, among other things, that the representations made by the principal, on 6 101969 and 5111969 on the basis of which Ext. P-2 was passed contained serious allegations against the management and the holy congregation, and requesting that the petitioner may be given copies of the said representations and an opportunity for being heard, before any decision is taken in this matter. ON 5 21970, the Government passed an order, Ext. P-8, rejecting the petitioner's request for copies of the aforesaid representations made by the Principal, and affirming the impugned order, Ext. P-2, subject to the decision of this Court in this writ petition. ON 9 21970, the petitioner moved for an amendment of the Writ Petition by adding a prayer for quashing ext. P-8 also. 1 disallowed the amendment as being unnecessary. The case was again heard on 12-2-1970. ONe of the controversies before me has been whether ext. P-2 was passed only on the basis of the representations made by the principal behind the back of the management, as contended on behalf of the petitioner, or "purely as an administrative measure and after having satisfied that it is necessary and expedient to do so in the interest of the educational institution" as stated in the Government's counter-affidavit. As usual, no documents have been produced by the Government in support of their assertions in the counter-affidavit. I, therefore, called upon the Government pleader to submit the concerned files for my scrutiny, which he did. The files contain the two representations made by the Principal of the College, on the basis of which the impugned order, Ext. P-2 was passed, and also one representation dated 3110 1969 from the petitioner, and another representation dated 30101969 from Sri. Rajaretnam both addressed to the Secretary to the government. As these four representations are necessary for a proper appraisal of the background of the case and the circumstances which led to the passing of the impugned order, the writ petition was posted for further hearing; and the learned Government Pleader was asked to produce copies of the said representations. They were produced on 2 31970, and have been marked in the case as Exts. R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4.

(3.) REFERENCE may now be made to the version of the principal contained in Ext. R-2 dated 3111969. According to her, Sri. Rajaretnam, on receipt of the notices sent by her, burst into her room in a rage, abusing her and throwing the notice at her, and assaulted her. She cried for help; and as no help came from the staff members, she rang-up to her husband. He immediately came to the College, met Sri. Rajaretnam and questioned hi m about the incident Nothing more took place, and all the allegations against her and her husband were false. Ext. R-2 then proceeds to level very serious charges against the management of the College and the nuns belonging to the congregation of Mother of Carmel. It is unnecessary to refer to them. To complete the narration, Sri. P. Narayana Menon, retired Principal, Maharaja's college was appointed by the management to conduct an enquiry into the above incident. Ext. P-3, the petitioner's representation dated 25121969 to the minister for Education states that Sri Narayana Menon conducted the enquiry and reported that Sri. Rajaretnam was innocent and the Principal was at fault, and that the Board of Management has issued a show cause notice to the Principal on 2121969 on the basis of the above report. Ext. P-3 also states that the matter was reported to the University on 712 1969, that the University sent a commission to enquire into it, and that the Commission visited the College on the 16th and 17th of December 1969. The impugned order, Ext. P-2, was passed by the Government in the wake of the above happenings.