ABDURAHUMAN Vs. DEO BADAGARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as High School Assistant (Arabic) in the high school section of the 2nd respondent, Pavandoor Secondary School. He was suspended by the 1st respondent as per Ext. P1 order. Ext. P1 refers to a letter of the 2nd respondent in which he requested the 1st respondent to enquire into the allegations against the petitioner and to take disciplinary action. It is further seen from Ext. P1 that the 2nd respondent requested the 1st respondent to take disciplinary action in stead of the Manager himself doing it.

(2.) Shri Vijayakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Ext. P1 order is totally without jurisdiction in view of S.12A of Kerala Education Act. S.12A of the Act reads as follows:

(3.) At the first blush, it is possible to accept the above argument. But when we look into the section closely, it can be seen that the proviso (a) which authorises the departmental authorities to take action controls only the power of the departmental authorities under S.12(A)(1). Sub-sections 1 and 2 of S.12A operate in different fields. Sub-section 1 of S.12A authorises departmental authorities to take disciplinary proceeding against a teacher and to impose him any of the penalties specified in the rules. Sub-section 2 of S.12A gives the power to the: department to suspend a teacher pending disciplinary proceedings. The proviso controls the power of the authorities to initiate disciplinary action restricting it to cases where the manager fails to take disciplinary action in spite of the intimation from the departmental officers. As far as the power to suspend is concerned, it is not controlled by the above proviso.