MANAGER, DARUL ULOOM VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY AND HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 19.9.2017. of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 32772 of 2015. The appellant is the Manager of an aided School. The issue relates to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the 5th respondent, a Physical Education Teacher of the School. When this appeal came up before us for admission, Senior Counsel Sri. P.K. Suresh Kumar who appears for the first respondent as well as the Government Pleader who represents respondents 2 to 4 requested that the matter be heard and finally disposed of on the merits. Since all the parties were represented through counsel, we acceded to the said request. We have thus heard the appeal on the merits on consent of all the parties.

(2.) The 5th respondent while working as the Physical Education Teacher of the appellant's School was suspended from service on 29.11.2011 alleging various acts of misconduct. The period of suspension was extended on 14.12.2011. The said order was challenged. by the 5th respondent in W.P. (C) No. 33894 of 2011. The writ petition was allowed and the order of suspension was quashed by this Court. Accordingly, he was reinstated. However, on the very next day, i.e., 17.1.2012, the 5th respondent was suspended again.

(3.) Thereafter, Ext. P1 Memo of Charges dated 31.12.2011. was served on the fifth respondent. According to the appellant, he had thereafter sought permission to peruse the relevant documents by Ext. P2. Though he was granted opportunity to peruse and collect the documents as requested for by him, he did not turn up on the dates notified for the purpose. Thereafter, by Ext. P6 dated 16.1.2012, as a last chance, he was granted permission to peruse the documents on 20.1.2012. But he did not turn up. In the said circumstances, the enquiry was directed to be proceeded with. Accordingly, the District Educational Officer conducted the enquiry. Though the 5th respondent participated in the enquiry, he did not cross-examine the witnesses. Therefore, the enquiry was concluded and as per Ext. P10 report of enquiry he was found guilty of all the charges. Thereafter, by Ext. P11 dated 25.5.2012, he was directed to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. Thereupon he submitted Ext. P12 objections. The objections were considered and by Ext. P13 order dated 7.11.2012, he was removed from service. Ext. P14 request was submitted under Rule 74, Chapter XIVA, Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (KER for short) seeking sanction of the Deputy Director of Education, Ernakulam for imposition of the punishment of removal from service. However, by Ext. P15, the 3rd respondent found that the charges in the case were not sufficient to justify the imposition of a major punishment like removal from service. Therefore, the appellant was directed to impose a punishment proportionate to the gravity of the charges proved.