KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR Vs. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a Peon in the Gnjanodayam Upper Primary School, Chittanda by the manager of the school and by his letter dated 29-11-1966 the latter requested the Assistant Educational Officer to approve the appointment. The certificate showing petitioner's qualification and conduct certificate were forwarded by the manager with his letter dated 29-11-1966. The appointment was duly approved. But later the educational authorities received complaints that in securing the employment the petitioner had misrepresented his age and there had been tampering with the admission register of B. M. P. V. School; Kanhirakkodu, so far as it concerned the entry relating to the petitioner. After an enquiry by the District Educational Officer, be reported the matter to the 1st respondent, who is the Director of Public Instruction, finding that prima facie there is a case against the petitioner for misrepresenting his date of birth. The 1st respondent considered the matter and decided that the petitioner should be placed under suspension forthwith. He issued Ext. P2(a) order dated 25-3-1971 placing the petitioner under suspension. It is that order which is impugned in the original petition. The ground taken by way of challenge to Ext. P2(a) order is that, according to the proviso to S.12A of the Kerala Education Act, the manager should have been given an opportunity of taking action and that this has not been done in the instant case. For this plea the petitioner relies on the language of S.12A(2). S.12A(1) provides that the Government or such officer not below the rank of an Educational Officer, as may be authorised by the Government in this behalf, shall have power to take disciplinary action against a teacher of an aided school and to impose upon him all or any of the penalties specified in the rules made under the Act. Sub-s.(2) deals with power of suspension and it provides that the Government or the officer authorised under sub-s.(1) may suspend a teacher when disciplinary proceedings are proposed. The first proviso requires that before taking action under Sub-s.(1) the Government or other authorised officer should intimate the manager regarding the circumstances requiring disciplinary action against the teacher concerned and give the manager a reasonable opportunity of taking disciplinary action and the Government or the authorised officer should take action only if the manager fails to take appropriate action. It is evident from the rule itself that the requirement that the manager should first be given an opportunity to take action applies only to action taken under Sub-r.(1). Suspension, no doubt, is in contemplation of an enquiry or disciplinary proceeding. But the provision for suspension is contained in S.12A(2) and the proviso has no reference to that sub-section. Therefore, I cannot agree with the contention of the petitioner's counsel that even for the purpose of suspending, the manager should be first asked to suspend the employee concerned and only on his failure should the Government or authorised officer should exercise any such power.

(2.) During the course of the bearing the petitioner took time to seek amendment of the Original Petition & that came in by way of C.M.P. 15485/1971. That petition has been beard and allowed by me. The counter also has been filed in answer to the additional ground raised by the amendment and I will now deal with the question thus raised by way of amendment.

(3.) According to the petitioner, S.12A has no application to disciplinary action or suspension in regard to non teaching staff as it is expressly limited to teachers of aided schools. If that be the case, the action purported to have been taken by the 1st respondent cannot be justified by reference to S.12A of the Act.