RAVINDRA BABU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the judgment of the learned single Judge in O. P. No 3191 of 1982. The appellant was the Headmaster of the S. N. V. Sanskrit High School, Thrikkakara, of which the 2nd respondent is the Manager. In respect of certain alleged misconducts, a disciplinary inquiry was held against the appellant. After a few attempts to secure prior concurrence for the action proposed by the Manager failed, the authorities having declined to grant the permission under R.74 of Chap.14A of the Kerala Education Rules, the 2nd respondent made one more attempt, proposing to impose the punishment of reduction of the appellant to the post of High School Assistant by way of punishment and sought concurrence of the authority specified in R.74. The said authority having declined to grant permission by Ext. P1 dated 4-2-1976. the second respondent challenged the said order by way of revision to the State Government. The State Government allowed the revision petition under R.92 of Chap.14A of the Rules by Ext. P2 dated 9th April, 1981, set aside the order made under R.74 and granted the prior sanction for imposition of the penalty of reduction to the cadre of High School Assistant. The appellant sought review of the said order which review petition came to be dismissed by Ext. P4 dated 21-4-1982. It is in this background that the appellant challenged Exts. P2 and P4 in O.P. No. 3191 of 1982. The learned Single Judge having dismissed the original petition he has come up with this appeal.

(2.) The first contention of Shri. Subramani, the learned course] for the appellant, is that the revision petition was not maintainable under R.92 as the order passed is not made appealable. The relevant portion of sub-rule (1) of R.92 in so far as it is necessary for the purpose of this case may be extracted as follows:

(3.) It was next contended by Shri. Subramani, the learned counsel for the appellant, that at any rate the revisional authority should not have exercised its revisional power under R.92 in such a manner as to deprive the appellant of the valuable right of appeal which has been conferred on him under the Rules. It is not and cannot be disputed that under R.92 the State Government can in exercise of its power of revision interfere with an order made under R.74 and make such appropriate order as it deems fit. If the prescribed authority wrongly declines to grant sanction prayed for under R.74, the revisional authority would be competent to revise such an order and make appropriate order, which the original authority under R.74 ought to have made. Shri Subramani also does not dispute the existence of such a power in the State Government. He however contends that such a power under R.92 being discretionary power should not be exercised in such a manner as to deprive the appellant of the right of appeal which law has conferred on him. R.80 of the Rules provides that a teacher shall be entitled to appeal from an order imposing on him any of the penalties specified in R.65 to the next higher authority to whom the former authority is subordinate. It prior sanction is accorded by the revisional authority and thereafter penalty is imposed by the Manager, the aggrieved teacher can exercise that right of appeal. R.81 provides that where sanction has been accorded for the imposition of any of the penalties by any authority then the appeal shall lie to the next higher authority to whom the authority who accorded the sanction is subordinate. Thus R.81 makes it clear that the appellate forum has to be an authority higher than the authority which accorded the sanction, it is in this background it was submitted by Shri. Subramani that if the State Government grants sanction under R.92 there would be no authority to which the appellant can prefer an appeal there being no authority higher than the State Government. We have to bear in mind that while considering the question of granting prior sanction under R.74 the authority is not required to examine the question whether the charges levelled are satisfactorily proved or not. It is not reasonable to impute that the intention of the rule making authority was to reader the order of the Manager imposing penalty, final without an appellate forum to correct the same. It appears to us that in a matter like this where sanction is refused by the Director under R.74 and is granted by the State Government in revision, such an order must be deemed to be an order made by the authority specified under R.74. If that is how the order of sanction by the State Government under R.74 is construed, there would be no hurdle in the way of the appellant in exercising his right of appeal under R.81 of the Rules. We have no hesitation in taking the view that the right of appeal conferred by R.81 of the Rules is not in any way affected by the grant of sanction by the State Government ia exercise of its power of revision under R.92 of the Rules.