CORPORATE MANAGER Vs. CHERIYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For having forged the signature of a teacher in a false application for advance from her Provident Fund, the Headmaster of an L P. School belonging to the CM. S. group of schools (corporate management) was proceeded against. As required by the provisions of the Kerala Education Rules, a due enquiry was conducted by the Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction. He found the Headmaster guilty. Acting on the basis of the enquiry report, the management proposed to remove him from service, but after considering his representation, the final decision taken was to reduce him permanently as a P D. teacher. The teacher filed a revision before Government, against the imposition of the aforesaid penalty, under R.92 of Chap.14A, The Government agreed with the management that the Headmaster was guilty and deserved punishment, but reduced the penalty to 'Having beard the arguments on both sides and perusing the records of the case including the file of the DPI Government do not find any procedural irregularity in this case. On merits also Government do not find any reason to set aside the orders of the Manager in full. However in view of the fact that there has not been any misappropriation and in view of the fact that the possibility of appropriating by the Headmaster the loan amount mentioned to a teacher is also remote, the punishment of permanent reduction of the rank is quite out of proportion to the gravity of the offence. Government in exercise of the powers conferred upon them under R.92 Chap.14A K.E.R, modify the punishment of the permanent reduction in rank to one of temporary reduction for the period from 21-11-1979 to 31-3-1981. Shri K. K. Cherian will accordingly be restored to his position as Headmaster with effect from the afternoon of 31-3-1981."

(2.) In O. P. No. 3214 of 1981 filed by the teacher, his contention is that the revisional authority should have fully exonerated him. And in OP. No. 1404 of 1981 the management challenges the validity of the revisional order, and contends that there was no scope at all for any kind of interference with the penalty imposed.

(3.) It is difficult to find substance in the Head-master's contention that the A.E O. who was examined as a witness at the enquiry, and the R.D D.P.I, who held the enquiry, were prejudiced or biased. Nor is there any force in the complaint, based on Ext. P3, that some records relevant for the enquiry were not banded over to him. The lady teacher concerned had given clear evidence that she had never applied for advance from the Provident Fund and that she had not signed the application which the Headmaster had admittedly forwarded to the higher authorities with a covering letter. This evidence was enough to sustain the finding at the enquiry, and all other technical contentions relating to its conduct have to be ignored, atleast for the purposes of the present proceedings before this Court. The Headmaster should consider himself lucky that the Government was prepared to take a lenient view as regards the quantum of punishment. Absolutely no grounds have been made out by the Headmaster for interference under Art.226, and OP. No. 3214 of 1981 has accordingly to be dismissed.