SREEDHARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the Manager of an aided High School in Kottarakkara Educational District. By an order dated 5th June, 1976 evidenced by Ext. P1 the petitioner placed the Headmaster of that school under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings which were contemplated to be taken against the Headmaster on certain allegations that were set out in Ext. P1. The petitioner submitted a report to the Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction, Trivandrum (2nd respondent) regarding the action taken by him to place the Headmaster under suspension and a request was made in that report to the Regional Deputy Director to grant sanction for continuance of the period of suspension of the teacher beyond 15 days. It would appear that the Headmaster who was placed under suspension also put in a representation before the 2nd respondent on 9-6-1976 questioning the justifiability of the action of the Manager in placing him under suspension. Sub-r.(8) of R.67 of Chap.14(A) of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) lays down the procedure to be followed by the Educational Officer on receipt of a report from the Manager concerning an order of suspension passed by the Manager against a teacher. That sub-rule states that the Educational Officer in the case of suspension of Headmaster of High School it is the Regional Deputy Director who is to function rule shall make a preliminary investigation into the grounds of suspension and if on such investigation the authority is satisfied that there was no valid ground for suspension he may direct the Manager to reinstate the teacher with effect from the date of suspension. If, on the contrary, on such investigation it is found by the Officer that there are valid grounds for such suspension permission is to be given to the Manager to continue the teacher under suspension beyond fifteen days pending completion of the enquiry into the charges levelled against the teacher.

(2.) In the present case what the 2nd respondent did on receipt of the report submitted by the Manager was to conduct a detailed enquiry into the charges including the calling of witnesses and recording their testimony and to pass an elaborate order entering definite findings on the merits of the charge's of misconduct leveled against the teacher. Such a procedure is not warranted by sub-r.(8) of R.67 of the Rules and the 2nd respondent has travelled very much outside the scope of her legitimate functions under the said sub-rule in conducting such a detailed enquiry and in recording final findings on the charges at this stage What the sub-rule contemplates is only that the Educational Officer exercising the powers conferred by the said rule should conduct a preliminary investigation with a view to find out whether there are prima facie grounds justifying the suspension of the teacher. Under the scheme of Chap.14(A) the enquiry into the charges is to be conducted only at a later stage in accordance with the provisions contained in R.75 of the Rules.

(3.) It is therefore manifest that the procedure adopted by the Regional Deputy Director in this case in calling upon the manager to produce before her all his evidence in support of the charges framed against the teacher at the stage of consideration of the limited question as to whether or not grounds existed warranting the suspension of the teacher was obviously illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioner is well founded in his contention that he has been put to very serious prejudice in the matter of having a proper enquiry conducted against the teacher under R.75 by reason of the 2nd respondent having already expressed herself finally on the merits of the charges in the impugned order evidenced by Ext. P2.