P. MURALIDHARAN, MANAGER, KADAMBUR HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KANNUR Vs. REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, KANNUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the Manager of an aided school. The 2nd respondent who was working in the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (HSST) - Sanskrit faced allegations of sexual abuse against a girl student who appeared for an examination at the Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Thalassery, in which examination, the 2nd respondent was an Invigilator. On receiving information regarding registration of a crime against 2nd respondent, from the Station House Officer, Thalassery Police Station, Ext.P1 order of suspension was issued by the appellant on 25.06.2018. A reading of the order of suspension shows that the only reason for the suspension was the registration of a criminal case against the 2nd respondent. The fact of suspension was intimated to the 1st respondent as required under the provisions of Rule 67 of Chapter XIVA of Kerala Education Rules. The order of suspension was duly approved by the 1 st respondent through Ext.p3 and the period of suspension was also extended through Ext.P.4 proceedings dated 09.07.2018 of the 1st respondent. A memo of charges dated 07.12.2018 was thereafter issued by the appellant to the 2nd respondent. The appellant also requested the 1st respondent to conduct a formal enquiry into the memo of charges through Ext.P.6 dated 18.12.2018.

(2.) The 2nd respondent filed a Crl. M.C. No.5843/2019 before this court seeking to quash the entire criminal proceedings initiated against him on the premise that the alleged victim and members of her family have now come forward with a statement that the complaint was given upon a misunderstanding and that they do not intend to proceed with the criminal case against the 2nd respondent. This court, on a consideration of the materials placed on record and after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the alleged victim and her mother, quashed the criminal proceedings against the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent on being appraised of the fact that the criminal proceedings against the 2nd respondent have been quashed reviewed the permission granted for the continuation of the suspension of the 2nd respondent and through Ext.P8 order dated 26.10.2019 directed that the 2nd respondent shall be reinstated in service forthwith. This order of the 1st respondent was challenged in the writ petition.

(3.) The learned Single Judge, on a consideration of the matter, found that while the disciplinary proceedings may not be dependent upon the quashing of the criminal proceedings, the 2nd respondent could be reinstated in service. The learned Single Judge also directed the 1st respondent to take up the request made by the petitioner for the conduct of the formal enquiry against the 2nd respondent without taking into consideration the reasons set out in Ext.P.8 and complete the proceedings in the manner provided for in the provisions of the Kerala Education Rules.