PARVATHY AMMA, T.V. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the Writ Petitioner. The writ petition was filed seeking to quash Ext. P-19 order passed by the 1st respondent. Appellant/petitioner has approached this Court on the following allegations: Petitioner is the manager of Thaze Kalari U.P. School She received various complaints against the 4th respondent who was a teacher. 4th respondent was suspended. The suspension was extended beyond 15 days after obtaining permission from the Educational Officer. Appellant decided to take disciplinary action against the 4th respondent. Ext. P-2 memo of charges was served along with a show cause notice. The explanation of the 4th respondent was found unsatisfactory and hence appellant requested the Assistant Educational Officer to conduct an enquiry. On enquiry 4th respondent was found to be guilty of charges and which, according to the appellant, included sexual abuse at work place. The Assistant Educational Officer, however, directed the manager to award only minor penalty and to reinstate the 4th respondent. Appeal filed by the appellant against that order was allowed. That order was set aside by this Court in a writ petition filed by the 4th respondent. Appellant/petitioner was allowed to file a revision under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the KER"). Revisional authority confirmed the order. Appellant challenged that order before this Court. By Ext. P-11 judgment learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the 4th respondent as withdrawn. As far as the writ petition filed by the appellant questioning the order of the Assistant Educational Officer directing the manager to impose minor penalty is concerned, it is interfered with and that part of the said order (Ext. P-9) directing the appellant to impose only a minor punishment was quashed. Further the direction in Ext. P-9 to reinstate the 4th respondent cancelling the suspension was apparently based on the opinion of the Assistant Educational Officer that the situation warrants only a minor punishment on the teacher it was found. Having found the teacher guilty of misconducts in a major penalty proceedings and having allowed the manager to continue suspension, the Assistant Educational Officer could not have decided to reinstate the teacher on the ground that he deserves only a minor punishment and it was for the appellant to decide that question also. That part of the order was also quashed. Appellant was directed to complete the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the sub rule (8) of Rule 75 of Chapter XIV A of the KER as expeditiously as possible within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Subsequently the proceedings were brought to its conclusion by the manager awarding punishment of compulsory retirement. According to the appellant, after 8 months, 4th respondent filed a revision before the Government invoking Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A of the KER. It is in the said order that the Government has proceeded to hold that the enquiry conducted by the Educational Officer was afflicted with illegality. Witnesses were examined without given an opportunity to the 4th respondent to cross-examine them. It is the further finding of the Government that when the punishment was proposed, copy of the enquiry report was not made available to 4th respondent. On the said ground Ext. P-19 order was passed by the Government by which the enquiry report and also the punishment came to be interfered with. It is the said order which is challenged by the appellant.

(2.) We heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned Senior Counsel for the 4th respondent and also the learned Government Pleader.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that this is a case where Ext. P-6 enquiry report was given. There was no case for the 4th respondent that there is violation of principles of natural justice in that the right of cross-examination was denied. It is only after 8 months of the imposition of punishment without preferring any appeal that the power under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A of the KER was invoked. According to the learned counsel, it is not correct to say that the officer denied the right to cross-examine the witnesses. 4th respondent did not lay claim for cross-examination in spite of opportunity, it is pointed out. Still, further he would contend that the learned Single Judge though having agreed with the Government on this score has found that some other charges have to be enquired into and has left it open to the appellant to move the authority for holding a fresh enquiry. In such circumstances, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is sought to be faulted on the score that the direction for reinstatement passed by the Government was not interfered with. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, there are serious charges among the charges in Ext. P-2 and when a fresh enquiry is going to be held, at any rate, having regard to the said facts of the case the learned Single Judge ought to have directed that the 4th respondent need not be reinstated.