K P NARAYANA MENON Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has come up before the Full Bench on the basis of an Order of Reference passed by a Division Bench of this Court. Para.1 to 5 of the Order of Reference may be usefully extracted as those paragraphs deal with the relevant provisions of the statute, the Kerala Education Act, 1958, and refer to the relevant rules in Chap.14(A) of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959, framed under the Act:

(2.) Considering the provisions and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court referred to in Para.5 of the Order of Reference and the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. J. N. Sinha and another reported in AIR 1971 SC 40 and the summary of the principles contained in the judgment of the Supreme Court, extracted in Para.6 of the Order of Reference, the Division Bench expressed the opinion that

(3.) it is no doubt true that the principles of natural justice are not akin to embodied rules or the provisions in a statute and must necessarily vary, and depend on the scope and ambit of the statute, the power exercised, the question determined and various other factors. What the. Supreme Court said was with reference to R.56(i) of the Fundamental Rules and considering all the circumstances, the court was able to infer that there was an implied negativing of the right of being heard. In the light of that pronouncement the question to be considered is whether there is anything in R.92 in Chap.14(A) of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959, which by implication negatives the right of a manager of being heard. Before we examine the wording of the rule and the arguments of the learned Advocate General based on the first proviso to the rule, it is necessary to repeat what has already been said in the reference order regarding the scheme of the Act and the provisions therein. The power of appointment and the power to take disciplinary action is vested in the manager under the provisions of the Act notwithstanding that that power is hedged in by regulations and restrictions embodied in the Act and as detailed in the rules that have been framed under the Act. Nevertheless the Act recognises the fact that discipline is a matter which is primarily the concern of the manager. We can see no other reason for providing that the enquiry in cases of what we may term the 'major misconducts' should be conducted as provided by R.75 in Chap.14(A) of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959, by the appropriate educational authority but that he should after having completed the enquiry and having drawn up the report and having entered the findings forward the report along with the other matters mentioned in the rule to the manager, and that the manager thereafter should determine what punishment should be imposed. The punishment is to be imposed by the manager. The fact that prior approval should be obtained before the punishment is actually effectuated does not touch the question of the right of the authority to impose the punishment. The necessity for obtaining the approval is another safeguard, as we see it, in the interests of the teachers, with a view to ensure that the imposing of punishment is not motivated by extraneous considerations such as vindictiveness or even bias which may at times we hope rarely result in excessively higher punishment being imposed. The section, S.12(2) of the Kerala Education Act, 1958, itself makes the position clear and the rules framed for the purpose of the section naturally cannot go beyond the section and have only explained the provision in the section. The fact that S.12A has been introduced does not touch the question. As we see it, the section is only for the purpose of safeguarding the interest of the public who have a general interest in the educational institutions being properly run in a disciplined manner by disciplined teachers, particularly so when public funds are spent for the upkeep of the institution. Essentially therefore the power of punishment is with the manager. And in a case like the one before us where approval for the proposed punishment was granted, the punishment had been imposed and the appeal taken by the teacher from that imposition had been dismissed, to suggest that the manager can be ignored at the stage of revision under R.92 by the State and that without affording him an opportunity to state his case the Government can set aside the punishment legally and legitimately imposed under the provisions of the statute and the rules and approved by the appellate authority is to ignore the provisions in the statute and against those provisions to make the manager a non entity. As we indicated earlier, the maintenance of discipline in an educational institution such as a school is the primary concern of the manager. This is as it should be. Interfering with those authorities of the manager would have only one effect: complete disruption of discipline in educational institutions which can have calamitous results. It is refreshing that the Act and the Rules have recognised this aspect.