LAWS(KER)-1973-11-15

P P SREEDHARAN Vs. AEO PAPPINASSERI

Decided On November 29, 1973
P. P. SREEDHARAN Appellant
V/S
AEO, PAPPINASSERI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suspension of the petitioner, a teacher of the Alavil North Lower Primary School, Cannanore, by the Assistant Educational Officer, Pappinasseri, the 1st respondent, purporting to act under S.12A(2) of the Kerala Education Act, 1958, for short, the Act, is challenged in this petition on the ground that the requirement of proviso (a) to S.124 had not been satisfied.

(2.) The power under sub-s.(2) of S.12A to suspend a teacher of an aided school is dependent only one factor that a disciplinary proceeding must be proposed to be taken against the teacher. The proviso in terms does not qualify sub-s.(2) of S.12A of the Act. On the other hand, by its wording, it limits its application to sub-s.(1) of S.12A.

(3.) No doubt, it is true that if the manager is intimated regarding the circumstances requiring disciplinary action against the teacher he will have the discretion as envisaged by R.75 in Chap.14(A) of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959, for short, the Rules, either to frame charges against the teacher or not to frame charges against the teacher. This discretion will depend on his satisfaction after a consideration of the circumstances intimated to the manager by the Educational Officer (vide R.75(1) of the Rules). It is also true that even after charges have been framed against the teacher by the manager, on receipt of the written statement the Manager can still decide whether it is necessary to hold a formal enquiry or not, for, before an enquiry is ordered, the Manager has to be satisfied himself as to whether a formal enquiry should be held or not (vide Para.2 of sub-r.(1) of R.75 of the Rules). In cases where the Manager is satisfied that either no charge need be framed against a person or when he is satisfied after perusing the written statement that there Ss no case to go for a formal enquiry, he may drop the proceedings. In such cases, we conceive that R.75A will have no application, for, the refusal to frame the charge or to order a formal enquiry will not be a failure to initiate appropriate action against the teacher. We have referred to these rules only because, counsel for the petitioner contended that it can be said that disciplinary proceedings are proposed against a teacher only in cases where action under R.75A has been decided upon by the Government or the officer authorised. We conceive that the proposal would be there from the time it has been decided to intimate the Manager regarding the circumstances requiring disciplinary action. If there is no proposal to take disciplinary action at that time, there is no point in intimating the Manager about those circumstances. The fact that the option is given to the Manager to follow the procedure under R.75 does not mean, there had been no proposal to take disciplinary action by the Government or the authorised officer. It is unnecessary to have any more material than what the Government or the authorised officer had at the time they or he wrote to the Manager pointing not the circumstances that disciplinary action must be taken in order to posit that there was a proposal to take disciplinary action.