ZAREENA BANU K.Z. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Manager, the petitioner in WP(C)No.6022/2023, had initiated disciplinary proceedings against the fifth respondent based on complaints made by the Principal of the institute on 10/7/2017, 19/8/2017 and 29/8/2017, respectively. The manager had issued Ext.P1 memo of charges along with the statement of allegations dtd. 4/10/2017, to which the fifth respondent teacher sent her explanation by Ext.P2 dtd. 3/11/2017. The Manager forwarded the documents to the District Educational Officer to conduct an enquiry under Rule 75 of Chapter XIV A KER. The DEO, Irinjalakkuda issued notice, commenced proceedings and an enquiry report drawn dtd. 23/11/2018 under Rule 75 of Chapter XIV A KER marked as Ext.P5. The report mentioned the absence of the petitioner despite giving several chances, and the enquiry officer found the fifth respondent guilty of charges and directed the manager to initiate appropriate action, pursuant to which the manager, as per Ext.P6 proceedings dtd. 3/5/2019 imposed a punishment of barring two increments. The fifth respondent challenged the same before the Deputy Director of Education by Ext.P8 order dtd. 25/7/2019, held that the manager ought to have obtained prior permission for imposing the penalty and thereafter, the matter was considered by the DEO who approved the proposal of punishment of barring two increments proposed by the manager as per Ext.P9 order dtd. 3/8/2019. The Deputy Director of Education dismissed the appeal the delinquent preferred, confirming the DEO order dtd. 5/8/2019.

(2.) In the meantime, the sixth respondent, who was an approved HSA (Malayalam), was qualified for promotion as HSST (Malayalam). Though the fifth respondent teacher was also qualified to be appointed as HSST (Computer Application), due to the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the management decided to promote the sixth respondent as HSST(Malayalam) and also the seventh respondent in the post of HSST (Computer Application) and did not consider the fifth respondent to granting promotion. The fifth respondent filed a revision before the Government and, as per order of the Government in revision dtd. 14/2/2020, Ext.P1, remitted the matter for reconsideration on the question of punishment. The Manager considered the matter again and reduced the barring of increments to one instead of the two initially proposed. This was done as per Ext.P12 order. By this time, the manager had promoted the sixth respondent and the resultant vacancy was filled up by appointing one Zareena Banu K.Z.

(3.) The fifth respondent challenged Ext.P12 order by filing WP(C)No.6352/2020. She also filed WP(C)No.10395/2020 and WP(C)No.35870/2019, challenging the promotions given to the sixth and seventh respondents. All the writ petitions were heard together, and by Ext P13 common judgment dtd. 1/7/2021, Ext.P13, held that the entire matter relating to the disciplinary action against the fifth respondent has to be reconsidered by the Government. It was also found that the Government is to decide on the punishment imposed against the fifth respondent. Accordingly, this Court quashed the Government Order that accepted the Deputy Director's report in the enquiry proceedings and the manager's order which imposed the punishment and directed to reconsider the revision preferred by the fifth respondent. As regards the promotion given, the Regional Director of Education, Ernakulam, was directed to reconsider the approvals granted to the teachers, V.A.Ramlath and Naseeha P.A., the sixth and seventh respondent in WP(C)No.6022/2023. This Court also held that in case the Government finds that the punishment imposed against the petitioner is improper, she was found entitled to be appointed 'by transfer' to one of the vacancies in the year 2019 and also directed the educational authorities to decide as to how respondents 6 and 7 be appointed subject to the availability of vacancy.