SHOBHANA C K Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The connected Writ Appeals are filed by the suspended Headmistress of an Upper Primary School. We have heard Senior counsel Sri. K. Ramakumar appearing for the appellant, Government Pleader for the State and the Educational Officer and also Adv. Sri. Santheep Ankarath appearing for 4th respondent in W.A. No. 1140/2012. The school in this case is taken over by the Government and the District Collector is officiating as it's Manager. A complaint was filed by the senior-most teacher of the school stating that the appellant as Headmistress withdrew the salary and PF advance taken by her for construction of house and appellant without releasing the amount to the teacher concerned deposited the amount in her account and went on long leave. The Assistant Educational Officer conducted enquiry and found that disciplinary action is called for against the appellant. Therefore, in exercise of powers under Section 12A(2) of the Kerala Education Act he informed the District Collector who was functioning as the Manager of the School about the enquiry he proposed to initiate against the appellant. Even though the District Collector as Manager had the power to suspend the appellant based on advice from the Educational Officer in terms of Rule 67(1) of Chapter XIV-A, the District Collector informed the Assistant Educational Officer to take action by himself. On receipt of District Collector's instruction, the A.E.O. proceeded to initiate disciplinary action against the appellant and as an immediate measure he suspended her in exercise of powers conferred under Section 12A(2) and Rule 67(2) against which writ petition was filed challenging the authority of the A.E.O. to suspend the appellant. The learned Single Judge upheld Ext. P4 suspension order against which the Writ Appeal is filed. One another Writ Appeal happened to be filed because Writ Petition challenging suspension was disposed of by the learned Single Judge along with another W.P. (C) filed by the 4th respondent in W.A. 1140/2012 for direction to the A.E.O. to get her salary and PF advance released from the appellant.

(2.) Senior counsel Sri. K. Ramakumar relying on two judgments of this court, one in Krishnankutty Nair v. Director of Public Instructions,1972 KerLT 204 and the other in Thomas v. Regional Deputy Director of Public Instructions & Others,1976 1 ILR(Ker) 477, contended that the District Collector as manager has no authority to instruct the A.E.O. to suspend the Headmistress. Government Pleader on the other relying on the first above decision itself contended that the powers of Manager and Educational Officer are concurrent under Section 12A and if Manager refuses to take disciplinary action or fails to suspend the teacher concerned, the Educational Officer is given independent and concurrent powers to take action. Counsel appearing for the third respondent also supported the argument of Government Pleader and justified the impugned judgment.

(3.) After hearing both sides, we are unable to accept the contention of the appellant that it is on direction by the District Collector as Manager of the school, the Educational Officer suspended the appellant. In fact, on going through Ext. P4 itself what is clear is that the complaint against the appellant was enquired into by the A.E.O. and only on his being satisfied that there is a need to take disciplinary action against the appellant, he informed the matter to the District Collector. The communication sent by the A.E.O. to the District Collector should be treated as a communication under Section 12A(2) of the Education Act which requires the Educational Authority to intimate the Manager of the school on the circumstances requiring disciplinary action against the teacher concerned which is to give an opportunity to the Manager to initiate disciplinary proceedings. However, it is clear from Section 12A(1) that independent power is conferred on the Government as well as on any Educational Officer authorised by it to take disciplinary action against any teacher of an aided school and to impose on such teacher punishment for the same. There is no dispute that the Educational Officer has independent and concurrent power to take disciplinary action against the delinquent teacher which in this case is the appellant. However, Senior counsel for the appellant submitted that if the Collector was satisfied on the report of the A.E.O., it was for him to initiate disciplinary action and to suspend the appellant which he did not do. There can be no dispute on this proposition because Collector while exercising powers of a Manager has the authority to initiate disciplinary action based on Assistant Educational Officer's report and he could even suspend the appellant. However, what is to be considered is whether the A.E.O. was justified in suspending the appellant. The Government Pleader rightly pointed out that A.E.O. enjoys power of suspension both under Section 12A(2) as well as under sub-rule (2) of Rule 67 which specifically confers power on the Government or the Educational Authority to initiate disciplinary action against the teacher involved in misconduct. Section 12A and Rule 67(2) are extracted hereunder for easy reference: