THANKAMMA Vs. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is now a teacher of a Government Upper Primary School. Before that the petitioner was a teacher of an Aided Lower Primary School. The question that arises for consideration is whether disciplinary action can be taken against a Government servant for a misconduct while in service as an Aided School teacher.

(2.) The petitioner started service as a teacher in the S. N. C. M. Lowers Primary School, Neyyassery. She ceased to be a teacher of the above school on 28-3-1973. On 29-3-1973 she entered Government service as a P. D. teacher and is now working in the Government Upper Primary School, Panippara. The respondent Director of Public Instruction by Ext. P-1 proceedings dated 11-2-1975 placed the petitioner and two other Aided School teachers under suspension pending enquiry. What is revealed in Ext. P-1 is that one P.E. Narayanan, Headmaster, S. N. C.M. L. P. School, the petitioner and one P. P. Sankaran 'connived together to show inflated strength in the school to derive pecuniary advantage and in pursuance of the conspiracy forged the signature of a guardian and also misappropriated CARE food stuffs, etc.' The petitioner has denied the allegation in the original petition. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent justifying the suspension made by Ext. P1. In para 8 of the counter affidavit It is pointed out that the petitioner is one governed not by the Kerala Education Act and Rules, but by the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.

(3.) Shri M. M. Abdul Azeez, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that no disciplinary action can be taken against the petitioner who is now a Government servant for a misconduct while she was an Aided School teacher. According to the learned counsel, disciplinary action, if any, under the Kerala Education Act, 1958 and the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 can be taken against an Aided School teacher only as long as the teacher continues as an Aided School teacher. As the petitioner ceased to be an Aided School teacher on 28-3-1973 no action can be taken against the petitioner under the Kerala Education Act and the Rules. In support of bis contention learned counsel relies on Peter v. District Collector, Ernakulam ( 1975 KLT 690 ). Learned counsel further contends that disciplinary action under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules can be taken against a Government servant only for a misconduct while in Government service According to the learned counsel, as the misconduct alleged was not committed after the petitioner entered Government service no question of taking any action under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules arises. Learned counsel then points out that if no disciplinary action is possible under the rules, there was no justification for the respondent to place the petitioner under suspension by Ext. P1.