FATHIMA BEEVI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Judgment of the court was delivered by Gopalan Nambiyar, C. J. -- The appellant is the Manager of the M. S. Upper Primary School, Manjappara and the 3rd respondent was the Headmaster of the School. Certain disciplinary proceedings were taken against the Headmaster by the appellant and he sought permission of the District Educational Officer for imposing the punishment of removal from service that was proposed to be inflicted on the Headmaster. This was under Chap.14A, R.74 and 75 of the Kerala Education Rules. R.74 and 75(11)(c) read as follows:

(2.) Counsel for the appellant rightly pointed out that if W. A. No. 325 of 1976 cannot succeed, he cannot possibly have any grievance to urge in W. A. 326 of 1976. We shall accordingly consider the grounds of attack in W.A. No. 325 of 1976.

(3.) The attack of Counsel for the appellant was that at the stage of granting previous sanction for the imposition of the punishment proposed, the sanctioning authority under Chap.21, R.75(11)(c) was not to concern itself with the question of the quantum, or the gravity of the punishment proposed. We have already extracted the terms of the Rule. We think it difficult to say that the appropriateness or the gravity of the punishment is a totally irrelevant circumstance at the stage of granting the previous sanction required by the Rule. The approving authority is not to act as a rubber stamp automatically approving the suggested punishment. Equally, he may not be an appellate authority sitting in judgment over the disciplinary proceedings. Between these two extremes, the limits of power of the approval must be found; and it is not altogether an easy task to fix his powers at the proper angle between the two extremes. On an overall view of the position, we cannot rule out altogether the appropriateness of the punishment as an element not germane at all to the question of granting or withholding previous sanction. We think we are fortified in this view by one of the provisions which appears in the statutory rules themselves. R.81 of Chap.14A which provides for appeal against the imposition of punishment by the Manager, provides that the appeal shall lie to the authority next higher in rank to the one who accorded sanction for the imposition of the punishment. This, it appears to us, can only be on the ground that it may not be altogether fair or proper to allow the authority who granted previous sanction for imposition of penalty, to sit in appeal over the disciplinary proceedings. That in turn we presume, can be on the footing that the authority granting sanction must pay regard to the nature of the charge as well as the nature of the penalty proposed to be inflicted against the delinquent teacher. This seems to afford some indication that the appropriateness of the punishment is not altogether irrelevant at the stage of granting the previous sanction.