PARAMESWARAN NAMBOODIRI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the Manager of Janatha High School, Naduvattam. The 3rd respondent is a Physical Education Teacher of the school now under suspension. The petitioner suspended the 3rd respondent by Ext. P2 proceedings dated 15-12-1975 under R.67(1)(a), Chap.14A of the K. E. R. for 15 days with effect from 17-12-1975. The 2nd respondent District Educational Officer, Ottappalam by Ext. P3 granted permission to place the 3rd respondent under suspension beyond 15 days. Thereafter, on 1-1-1976 the petitioner issued Ext. P4 memo of charges to the 3rd respondent and forwarded the records to the 2nd respondent for an enquiry under R.75 Chap.14A of the K. E. R. As the enquiry was not completed, the petitioner sent Ext P5 reminder to the 2nd respondent who by Ext. P6 informed the petitioner that the enquiry against the 3rd respondent was kept in abeyance because of a criminal case filed against the 3rd respondent. Nothing was heard about the matter for a considerable period. Then the petitioner received Ext. P7 order of the 2nd respondent dated 19-8-1978 directing ; reinstatement of the 3rd respondent. Against Ext. P7 the petitioner submitted Ext. P8 revision to the 1st respondent State pointing out that Ext. P7 direction of the 2nd respondent was not in accordance with the relevant rules in Chap.14A of the K. E. R. governing the procedure for the imposition of major penalties against a teacher. The 1st respondent disposed of Ext. P8 revision by Ext. P9 letter which reads:

(2.) The facts which led to the suspension of the 3rd respondent teacher are: There was a Scout Camp in December 1975. On 7-12-1975, the last day of the Camp, at about 8.30 p.m. the scouts, the teachers in charge of the Camp, the District Scout Organiser, the Headmistress of the School and others were getting ready for the campfire. The 3rd respondent was found heavily drunk and was behaving in a disorderly manner creating notice and uttering vulgar words. As all attempts to control him or to send him away failed, the Police was called and they removed the 3rd respondent to the Police Station. The next day, the Headmistress of the school sent Ext. P1 report to the petitioner and it was on the basis of that report that the petitioner conducted a preliminary investigation, took statements from the teachers and others present in the school at the time of the incident and called for the 3rd respondent's explanation. After going through the explanation, the 3rd respondent was placed under suspension by Ext. P2.

(3.) The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. Along with the counter affidavit a copy of the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Pattambi has been produced as Ext. R1. It is seen from Ext. R1 that the 3rd respondent was acquitted on benefit of doubt. The allegations in the original petition are denied in the counter affidavit. The fact that the Police took him into custody and removed him to the Police Station at 12 p.m. in the night is admitted in the counter affidavit. It is stated that the Police came at the instance of the Headmistress of the school who was inimical to the 3rd respondent. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 also. It is stated in para 3 of the counter affidavit that before the enquiry against the 3rd respondent under R.75 could be completed, the Munsiff Magistrate, Pattambi issued summons in the case charged against the 3rd respondent and hence it was decided to take up the enquiry after the disposal of the case pending before Court. Thereafter, on 12-6-1978 the 3rd respondent informed the 2nd respondent that he was acquitted in the case and requested for reinstatement. It was thereupon that Ext. P7 order was passed by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner's revision against Ext P7 was disposed of by the 1st respondent by Ext. P9. It is pointed out in Para.4 that there is no illegality in rescinding the orders permitting suspension beyond 15 days and directing the management to reinstate the teacher. It is pointed out in para 5 that as the Court has pronounced the 3rd "respondent not guilty it was incumbent on the part of the District Educational Officer to revoke the permission given to place the 3rd respondent under suspension beyond 15 days. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit contending that 'an acquittal in a criminal case is as regards the offence but the proceedings by way of departmental enquiry are with a view to explore the desirability of such a person being maintained in the department'. It is also pointed out in the reply affidavit that the 3rd respondent was under suspension on an earlier occasion and punishments also were imposed on him.