P R YAMUNA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a teacher in an aided school managed by the fourth respondent, challenges Exts. P3, P4 and P6 orders. Ext. P3 is the order of the Assistant Educational Officer, by which the punishment of barring of two increments without cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner pursuant to disciplinary proceedings. Ext. P4 is the order of the Deputy Director of Education in appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext. P3 order. Ext. P6 is the order of the Government rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging these orders primarily on the ground that the procedure prescribed under Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules has not been complied with before imposing punishment on the petitioner. The petitioner's contention is that Ext. P1 is the first notice issued to the petitioner containing charges levelled against her, in the disciplinary proceedings although she was earlier suspended. According to her, in Ext. P1 show cause notice itself, the AEO had prejudged the guilt of the petitioner and after finding the petitioner guilty, without giving her any opportunity to file her explanation on the charges levelled against her, or without conducting any enquiry or other proceedings, straight away directed the petitioner to show cause as to why the punishment of debarring of three increments with cumulative effect should not be imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner had filed Ext. P2 reply to the same and without even referring to Ext. P2 reply, Ext. P3 order has been passed imposing punishment on the petitioner. The petitioner submits that the minimum the AEO should have done as per the procedure prescribed is to issue a memo containing the charges levelled against the petitioner and direct the petitioner to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against the petitioner for the misconducts alleged against her. Thereafter, the AEO should have considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner and come to a definite conclusion as to the guilt of the petitioner and then only the question of imposition of punishment arises. The petitioner submits that such a procedure is conspicuously absent in this case and therefore, the disciplinary proceedings are clearly vitiated. In support of this contention, the petitioner also relies on a Single Bench decision of this Court in K. J. Sulatha and Others v. State and Others, 1993 KHC 241 : 1993 (2) KLJ 370.

(2.) The petitioner has got another contention that the AEO could not have in the first instance initiated disciplinary proceedings by himself. According to her, under S.12A of the Kerala Education Act read with R.75A of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules, it was incumbent on the AEO to first direct the Manager of the school to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and only if the Manager fails to initiate disciplinary action, the AEO could have directly initiated disciplinary action.

(3.) The petitioner also contends that the primary charge, which the petitioner has been found guilty of, is regarding the failure on the part of the petitioner to hand over charge to the Headmistress who was directed to be reinstated as Headmistress, while the petitioner was holding charge as Teacher in charge of the school. The contention of the petitioner is that although the Department had directed reinstatement of the Headmistress, formal order of reinstatement was not issued by the Manager, without which the petitioner could not have validly handed over charge to the reinstated Headmistress. The petitioner also disputes the other charges. On these grounds, the petitioner would seek quashing of the impugned orders.