Disposed

Suja Thomas Vaidyan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Oct 2013WP(C)/6824/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the school manager to serve memo of charges within two weeks and allowed the respondent to submit an explanation within a further fortnight. The court ordered that if disciplinary proceedings are initiated, an inquiry must be completed within four months in accordance with the Kerala Education Rules.

What did the court decide?

Direction to serve memo of charges within 2 weeks; liberty to submit explanation within further 2 weeks; inquiry to be completed within 4 months.

Suja Thomas Vaidyan Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/6TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 6824 of 2013 (C)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SUJA THOMAS VAIDYAN HEADMISTRESS SREE NARAYANA MEMORIAL U.P.SCHOOL(SNM UPS) KANDACHIRA PERINAD KOLLAM DISTRICTPIN 691 601.

¶8

BY ADVS.DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THEVALLY P.O.,KOLLAM 691 009

¶12

3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM PIN 691 009.

¶13

4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KUNDARA, KOLLAM PIN 691 501

¶14

5. THE MANAGER SREE NARAYANA MEMORIAL U.P SCHOOL, KANDACHIRA, PERINAD KOLLAM DISTRICT PIN 691 601.

¶15

R1-R4 BY SMT.A.LOWSY, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R5 BY ADV. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ALONG WITH W.P.(C)NOS.8286 OF 2013 AND 24763 OF 2013 ON 28-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 6824 of 2013 (C)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES GIVEN TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 30.07.2012.

¶21

EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 10.09.2012.

¶22

EXT.P3- TRUE COPYU OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AS NO.C.2659/12 DATED 22.09.2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B1/8698/2012 DATED 20.11.2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B2/19111/2012/K.DIS DATED 21.10.2013 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 7.3.2013.

¶26

EXT.P7- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 7-3-2013.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL --------------------------------------- R.AV

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

C.T.RAVIKUMAR.J.

=================

¶32

W.P.C.NOS.6824 OF 2013, 8286 OF 2013 & 24763 OF 2013

¶33

=====================

¶34

Dated this the 28^th day of October 2013.

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

The facts and issues involved in these writ petitions are intrinsically intertwined and therefore, they were taken up for joint consideration and disposal. The Manager of SNM UP School, Kandachira is the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.8286 of 2013 and W.P.(C) No.24763 of 2013. The common party respondent in those writ petitions namely Suja Thomas Vaidyan is the Headmistress of the said school and she is the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.6824 of 2013. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to hereafter in this judgment in accordance with their status in W.P.(C)No.24763 of 2013. The documents are also referred to hereafter in the manner they are set out therein unless otherwise specifically mentioned. The petitioner placed the aforesaid Suja Thomas Vaidyan, the 3^rd respondent under suspension as per Ext.P3 order dated 10.09.2012. After placing the third respondent under suspension a copy of Ext.P3 was forwarded to the Competent Educational Officer in tune with the relevant provisions under Rule 67 of Chapter XIVA of Kerala Education Rules. After conducting a preliminary enquiry

¶37

in to the grounds of suspension the petitioner was directed to reinstate the 3^rd respondent in service, but with liberty to continue

¶38

W.P.C.NOS.6824 OF 2013,

¶39

8286 OF 2013 & 24763 OF 2013 2

¶40

with the disciplinary action. In fact, as per Ext.P5 the 1^st respondent made it clear that the disciplinary action against the 3^rd respondent could be continued. A perusal of Ext.P5 would reveal that the 1^st respondent held that there was no reason to grant sanction to continue to keep to the 3^rd respondent under suspension and accordingly, while refusing such permission liberty was granted to the manager to continue with the disciplinary action. The specific contention of the petitioner is that memo of charges has been served on the 3^rd respondent and that the 3^rd respondent has submitted her explanation after its receipt. The learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent submitted that he had no instructions on the issue as to whether memo of charges has been served on the 3^rd respondent and also whether pursuant to its receipt, if at all received, the 3^rd respondent submitted her explanation to the memo of charges. In the former writ petition filed by the 3^rd respondent the main relief sought is for a direction to the respondents 2 to 4 to see that the order for reinstating her in service is complied with. It is submitted by the learned counsel that subsequently the 3^rd respondent has been reinstated in service as Headmistress of this school. In fact, such an order was passed only after an interim order passed by this Court in W.P.(C)No.6824 of 2013 on 01.04.2013. In the said interim order dated 01.04.2013 it was made clear that the entitlement of the 3^rd respondent arrears of salary and other allowances from 01.01.2013 and

¶41

W.P.C.NOS.6824 OF 2013, 8286 OF 2013 & 24763 OF 2013 3

¶42

also arrears of salary and allowances from the date on which she was placed under suspension till 31.12.2012 would be considered at the later stage. In W.P.(C)No.8286 of 2013 the grievances of the petitioner is that as against Ext.P4 order directing the petitioner to reinstate the 3^rd respondent and Ext.P6 revision petition before the Government against the same is still pending. In W.P.(C)No.24763 of 2013 the prayer of the petitioner is for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the 1^st respondent to conduct a formal enquiry into the charges pursuant to Ext.P1 and other memo of charges issued to the 3^rd respondent. The further prayer is for declaration that the 1^st respondent is duty bound to conduct a formal enquiry into the charges against the 3^rd respondent either by himself or by any other officer not below the rank of Assistant Educational Officer.

¶43

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent and also the learned Government Pleader. It is evident that the main prayer in W.P.(C)No.6824 of 2013 is no more surviving and pursuant to the order issued by this Court on 01.04.2013 the 3^rd respondent was, admittedly, reinstated in service. In the said order it was made clear that the entitlement of the 3^rd respondent for arrears of salary and allowances from the date on which she was placed under suspension till 31.12.2012 would be considered at the later stage. It is an admitted

¶44

W.P.C.NOS.6824 OF 2013,

¶45

¶46

8286 OF 2013 & 24763 OF 2013

¶47

position that after considering the grounds of suspension the concerned competent authority had granted liberty to the petitioner to continue with the disciplinary action against the 3^rd respondent while ordering to reinstate her. As noticed hereinbefore, the contention of the petitioner is that subsequently memo of charges has been served on the 3^rd respondent. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that in respect of the 3^rd respondent who is working as Headmistress in the school belonging to the petitioner the power to initiate disciplinary action in accordance with law vests with the petitioner. In such circumstances, merely because the petitioner has filed a former writ petition challenging the order of suspension cannot be a ground for refraining the petitioner from initiating appropriate disciplinary action, in accordance with law.

¶48

I have already found that the power to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner who is holding the post of Headmistress in the petitioner's school vested with the petitioner in his capacity as the manager of the school. In the said circumstances, it is ordered that in case a copy of Ext.P1, referred as such in W.P.(C)No.24763 of 2013, was not already served on the 3^rd respondent, a copy of the same shall be served on the 3^rd respondent within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. In case the 3^rd respondent has not already submitted her explanation as to why the disciplinary action should not be taken against her it would be open to the 3^rd respondent to submit

¶49

W.P.C.NOS.6824 OF 2013, 8286 OF 2013 & 24763 OF 2013 5

¶50

explanations in that regard, within a further period of 2 weeks. In case of its receipt within the above stipulated period it would be open to the petitioner, the manager to take a decision whether to initiate disciplinary proceedings if not already initiated. If the petitioner has already initiated disciplinary proceeding and forwarded the memo of charges for enquiry under Rule 75 of Chapter XIV-A of Kerala Education Rules or in case the petitioner is desirous to proceed with disciplinary action against the 3^rd respondent on finding the explanation unsatisfactory the competent educational authorities shall take appropriate action for enquiry at the request of the petitioner, in accordance with law. In such eventuality the enquiry officer shall commence and complete the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law expeditiously and at any rate, within a period of 4 months to enable the petitioner to conclude the proceedings in accordance with law.

¶51

These writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.

¶52

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE

¶53

R.AV

Suja Thomas Vaidyan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suja Thomas Vaidyan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nishad P.M. Vs State of Kerala

R. Suku Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Dr.Krishnamayi a. Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Pyarilal S.K. Vs Cochin University of Science and Technology

K.Jaseela Vs the State of Kerala

P.Riyad Vs the State of Kerala