The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a school manager's dismissal order. The court held that Rule 75 of the Kerala Educational Rules was complied with as a reasoned order was passed after admitting charges and affirmed that removal was proportionate to misconduct disrupting school discipline.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/28TH KARTHIKA, 1937
WP(C).No. 14821 of 2012 (C)
PETITIONER :
K.SHAHUL HAMEED, SON OF KUNJIPOKER HAJI,AGED 40 YEARS, LAB ASSISTANT (UNDER SUSPENSION), M.S.M.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KALLINGAPARAMBA (RESIDING AT KOTTAYIL VEEDU, KURUKA, KALPAKANCHERY, MALAPPURAM-676 551).
BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA SRI.T.V.VIJAYARAJAN
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE-673 020.
4. THE MANAGER, M.S.M.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KALLINGAPARAMBA, KALPAKANCHERRY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 551.
5. THE PRINCIPAL, M.S.M.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KALLINGAPARAMBA, KALPAKANCHERRY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 551.
R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.M.JOSEPH
R4 & R5 BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.ANISON SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI SMT.ANNIE JACOB SMT.P.A.RINUSA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C).NO.14821/2012
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
sts
**A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.14821 of 2012
Dated this the 19th day of November 2015
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exts.P5 and P7 by which the Manager of the School had removed him from service, which was later confirmed by the Government.
W.P.C.No.14821/2012
2
Though he filed an appeal before the Government, Government also confirmed the same as per the order dated 02/05/2012.
W.P.C.No.14821/2012
3
Education, the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent, on conducting an enquiry, issued Ext.P3 order dated 28/03/2008. In Ext.P3 order, it was found that the allegations against the petitioner has been proved. However, the Director proceeded to observe that the petitioner shall not, hereafter, create any nuisance which affects the functioning of the school and that he should be given a final warning in the matter. The Manager was directed to re-instate him in service and to treat the suspension period as eligible leave.
W.P.C.No.14821/2012
4
School, discipline is very important and being a Lab Assistant, the petitioner was bound to carry out his functions, in accordance with the directions issued in that regard and instead of carrying on his routine duties, he had indulged in Satyagraha in front of the School and had also disrupted the meeting of the Parent Teachers Association. It is stated that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is proportionate to the proved charges and therefore there is no illegality in the orders passed.
W.P.C.No.14821/2012
5
authority to conduct an enquiry, it has to be for the purpose of imposing a major penalty. In terms of Rule 75(3), the delinquent is given an opportunity to put up his defence and verify all necessary records. In the present case, there is a finding that a hearing has been conducted by the Director on 27/05/2010 and he formed an opinion that the allegations raised against the delinquent employee is justified. Further the memo of charges at Ext.P1 also indicates that notice had been given to the petitioner asking him to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him as contemplated under Rule 75 of Chapter XIVA. Therefore, it is clear that the intention of the Manager was to conduct an enquiry for imposing major punishment. Director of Public Instructions, however, having found that the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled, found it fit to direct the Manager to re-instate him in service by giving a warning. The said order was challenged by the Manager by filing W.P.C.No.8048/2009, in which the petitioner was a party. This Court had directed the Manager to give an opportunity to the petitioner for being heard and to pass appropriate orders. It is also borne out from records that a writ appeal has been filed by the petitioner against the
W.P.C.No.14821/2012
6
aforesaid judgment as W.A.No.857/2010, which was dismissed as per the judgment dated 28/05/2010.
W.P.C.No.14821/2012
7
petitioner from service on account of his misconduts. Being a School managed by the 4th respondent, discipline is of primary importance and if, one of the staff, being part of the school, works in a manner of total indiscipline, it will affect the institution as a whole. The proved charges were conducting 'satyagragha' in front of the school and disrupting the meeting of Parent Teachers Association.
There being no merits in the contentions urged in the writ petition, the same is dismissed.
(sd/-)
(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)
jsr
W.P.C.No.14821/2012
8
3 issues framed by the court
Whether there was compliance of Rule 75 of Chapter XIV of the Kerala Educational Rules regarding enquiry and procedure.
Whether the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate to the proved charges.
Whether the dismissal from service should be set aside due to non-compliance of disciplinary rules.
K. SHAHUL HAMEED
THE STATE OF KERALA
THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION
THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION
THE MANAGER, M.S.M.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KALLINGAPARAMBA
THE PRINCIPAL, M.S.M.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KALLINGAPARAMBA
A.M. SHAFFIQUE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
