Allowed

T.D.Sabu v. Deputy Director of Education

Kerala HC20 Dec 2012WP(C)/23375/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, treating a writ petition by a suspended Hindi teacher regarding his departmental proceedings, held that continued suspension was unjustified due to the criminal case pendency and the hardship to students. The court directed the School Manager to reinstate the petitioner forthwith, with the pendency of the criminal case remaining unaffected and without prejudice to it.

What did the court decide?

1. Direction to the 3rd respondent Manager to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith. 2. Without prejudice to the pendency of the criminal case.

T.D.Sabu Vs Deputy Director of Education — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/29TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 23375 of 2012 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

T.D.SABU, [HINDI LANGUAGE TEACHER (UNDER SUSPENSION), S.N.U.P.SCHOOL, KOODAL], THARAMEL HOUSE MURINJAKAL P.O., KOODAL, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN:689 693.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY

¶9

SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN:689 645.

¶12

2. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN:689 645.

¶13

3. THE MANAGER, S.N.U.P.SCHOOL, KOODAL JUNCTION, KOODAL P.O., PIN:689 693.

¶14

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.T.LILLY R3 BY ADVS. SMT.S.K.DEVI SRI.SANTHOSH P.ABRAHAM

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 23375 of 2012

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXT.P1:	COPY OF THE MEMO NO.06(1)2011-12 OF THE MANAGER DATED 25.2.2012.
EXT.P2:	COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B1/1976/12 DATED 24.2.2012 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3:	COPY OF THE REMAND APPLICATION DATED 18.2.2012 IN CRIME NO. 84/2012 OF KOODAL POLICE STATION.
EXT.P4:	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.3.2012 ON B.A.NO.1345/2012.
EXT.P5:	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.8.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION.
EXT.P6:	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.8.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA.
EXT.P7:	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.8.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P8:	COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARDS.
EXT.P9:	COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 16.8.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HEADMISTRESS, SNUPS, KOODAL.

¶20

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

VPV

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

¶25

¶26

W.P.(C) No. 23375 of 2012

¶27

¶28

Dated, this the 20^th day of December, 2012

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The petitioner was working as Hindi language teacher in

¶31

the 3^rd respondent's school who came to be suspended as per Ext. P1 order issued by the 3^rd respondent.

¶32

The case of the petitioner is that, he happened to be implicated in a criminal case absolutely without any factual or legal basis, alleging offence under Section 354 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. With reference to the said proceedings, the second respondent directed the third respondent Manager to place the petitioner under suspension as per Ext. P2 letter dated 24.02.2012, which in turn was given effect to by the third respondent Manager as per Ext. P1 memo of suspension dated 25.02.2012. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing Bail Application No. 1345 of 2012 and after hearing merits, Ext. P4 order came to be

¶33

W.P.(C) No. 23375 of 2012

¶34

: 2 :

¶35

passed on 06.03.2012 and the petitioner is now on bail. After

¶36

obtaining the bail, the petitioner filed Exts. P5 to P7 representations before respondents 1 to 3 respectively for reinstatement. But the departmental authorities are not paying any heed to the same and the petitioner is still in dark, which made him to approach this Court by filing this writ petition.

¶37

The second respondent has filed a statement referring to the course and events, however conceding the fact that the third respondent is the appointing authority, who is to take disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner vide Rule

¶38

67 (A) of Chapter XIV KER.

¶39

The third respondent Manager has filed an affidavit, where it is stated that, after passing Ext. P1 order of suspension pursuant to Ext. P2 instruction given to the second respondent, the proceedings were forwarded to the respondent No. 1 and that no further instructions or orders were given thereafter. It is also pointed out that the students

¶40

W.P.(C) No. 23375 of 2012

¶41

: 3 :

¶42

whose name stand figured in the FIR in connection with the alleged incident have left the school, after completing their studies in the 7^th standard. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner is the only Hindi language teacher in that school and the suspension of the petitioner is causing serious hardships to the career of the students, adversely affecting the institution in completing the 'portions' of students as per syllabus. It is also stated in paragraph 7 of the affidavit that the third respondent does not propose to take any further action against the petitioner.

¶43

Heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent Manager.

¶44

After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the continued suspension of the petitioner is merely because of registration of the case and pendency of the matter and that there is every chance to affect the career and prospects of the students who are pursuing their studies in the school.

¶45

W.P.(C) No. 23375 of 2012

¶46

: 4 :

¶47

In the said circumstances, there will be direction to the 3^rd respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith, however, without prejudice to the pendency of the criminal case.

¶48

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶49

sd/ -

¶50

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)

¶51

kmd

T.D.Sabu v. Deputy Director of Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.D.Sabu v. Deputy Director of Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

L.Lekha Vs State of Kerala

K.Abdulla Vs State of Kerala

A.Sathyan Vs the Director,Urban

M.Muruga Das Vs Regional Commander& Others

V.Sureshlal Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

P.Chandrahasan Vs Director of Urban Affairs