Dismissed

Smt.M.Lalitha v. P.a.Cheriya Hassan Haji

Kerala HC31 Mar 2016OP/11435/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, a former school headmistress challenged her reinstatement as an Assistant Teacher, the imposition of censure penalty for misconduct, and the classification of her suspension period as leave without allowances, seeking pension benefits.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was denied reposting as Headmistress; the censure penalty was upheld; suspension treated as qualifying service for pension.

Smt.M.Lalitha Vs P.a.Cheriya Hassan Haji — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2016/11TH CHAITHRA, 1938

¶5

O.P. No. 11435 of 2001 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SMT. M. LALITHA KANHIRAMNINNA PADIPPURA VEEDU PARANIYAM, POOVAR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAMACHANDRAN SRI.ISAAC GEORGE SRI.MHJ.DAVID

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. P.A. CHERIYA HASSAN HAJI, MANAGER KOONULMADU, A.M.L.P. SCHOOL, KOONULMADU P.O. PUTHURPALLIKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KONDOTTY.

¶12

3. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER MALAPPURAM.

¶13

4. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

5. THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

6. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

BY ADVS. SRI.C.P.SUDHAKARA PRASAD (SR.) SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. S. JAMAL

¶17

THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

O.P. No. 11435 of 2001 (J)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :-

¶21

EXT.P1	-	COPY OF THE LETTER OF RESIGNATION WRITTEN BY THE PETITIONER DATED 31.10.1985.
EXT.P2	-	COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D7525/85 DISCIPLINARY ACTION INITIATED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER DATED 19.02.1986.
EXT.P3	-	COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT SUSPENDING THE PETITIONER DATED 15.04.1986.
EXT.P4	-	COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT APPROVING THE SUSPENSION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 07.05.1986.
EXT.P5	-	COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES FRAMED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER DATED 11.05.1987.
EXT.P6	-	COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET NO.4/86 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE SPECIAL JUDGE TRICHUR DATED 15.06.1988.
EXT.P7	-	COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION DATED 24.10.1987.
EXT.P8	-	COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER REINSTATING THE PETITIONER IN SERVICE DATED 31.05.1990.
EXT.P9	-	COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION NO.5428/1990 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THIS COURT DATED 15.06.1990.
EXT.P10	-	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN ORIGINAL PETITION NO.5428/1990 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 08.08.1995.
EXT.P11	-	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT APPEAL NO.1386/95 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 07.11.1995.
EXT.P12	-	COPY OF PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER DATED 14.10.1995.
EXT.P13	-	COPY OF THE REQUISITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE MANAGER DATED 28.11.1995.
EXT.P14	-	COPY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT REPLY TO THE PETITIONER DATED 11.11.1995.
EXT.P15	-	COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S SUBMISSION TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 09.11.1995.

¶22

[CONTD....]

¶23

O.P. No. 11435 of 2001 (J)

¶24

¶25

EXT.P16	-	COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10.11.1995.
EXT.P17	-	COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S REPLY TO THE EXHIBIT P12 DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18.11.1998.
EXT.P18	-	COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 01.12.1995.
EXT.P19	-	COPY OF THE WRITTEN EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18.12.1995.
EXT.P20	-	COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER RT NO.2397/96/GE DIRECTING THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER DATED 23.07.1996.
EXT.P21	-	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT IN O.P. NO.12758 OF 96-R DATED 13.09.1996.
EXT.P22	-	COPY OF THE NOTICE IN DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS NO.D/ 2368/96 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED .11.1996.
EXT.P23	-	COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ASKING THE PETITIONER TO REJOIN AS TEACHER DATED 04.12.1996.
EXT.P24	-	COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D 2368/96 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ASKING THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO IMPOSE THE PUNISHMENT OF CENSURE ON THE PETITIONER DATED 28.12.1996.
EXT.P25	-	COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IMPOSING THE PUNISHMENT OF CENSURE ON THE PETITIONER DATED 01.01.1998.
EXT.P26	-	COPY OF THE REQUEST SEEKING THE DEPOSITION DATED 24.02.1997.
EXT.P27	-	COPY OF THE LETTER NO.1111/97 TURNING DOWN THE PETITIONER'S REQUEST ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.02.1997.
EXT.P28	-	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 27.02.1997.
EXT.P29	-	COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B1/2562/97 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT CALLING FOR MORE DOCUMENTS DATED 12.12.1997.

¶26

[CONTD....]

¶27

¶28

O.P. No. 11435 of 2001 (J)

¶29

EXT.P30 - COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B1/2562/97 REJECTING THE PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATION ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 21.01.1998.

¶30

EXT.P31 - COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE GOVERNMENT DATED 01.07.1998.

¶31

EXT.P32 - COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT AS GO(RT) NO.942/2000/GE DATED 08.03.2000.

¶32

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶37

----------------------------------

¶38

O.P. No.11435 of 2001-J

¶39

---------------------------------Dated this the 31^st day of March, 2016

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

The petitioner, who was appointed as a

¶42

teacher in 1976, was posted as

¶43

Headmistress-in-charge in the year 1981. The petitioner admits to have relinquished her claim, to continue as Headmistress-in-charge by Ext.P1.The petitioner in the above writ petition alleges that the same was under the coercion of the Manager. It is also admitted that one another teacher in the very same school was appointed as the Headmaster. These proceedings were taken far earlier, in the year

¶44

W.P.(C) No.11435 of 2001-J

¶45

¶46

There can be no challenge raised against such proceedings nor can the allegation of coercion be considered in this writ petition of the year 2001.

¶47

The further contention is with respect to the period, in which the petitioner was kept under suspension; being a period of 10 years. The petitioner was suspended on allegations of misconduct by Ext.P3. The suspension was on account of a direction issued by the Assistant Educational Officer (A.E.O),Kondotty, on the basis of a complaint of the Secretary, Parent Teacher Association (P.T.A).

¶48

By Ext.P4, the A.E.O sanctioned the continuance of the petitioner on suspension as per Rule 67 (8) of Chapter XIVA of Kerala Education Rules (K.E.R), 1959. A memo of charges was issued as is indicated at Ext.P5.

¶49

W.P.(C) No.11435 of 2001-J

¶50

¶51

The allegations included charges of bogus admissions, drawing of lump sum grant in fictitious names, gross indiscipline in issuance of Transfer Certificates, manipulation and destruction of records etc. A crime was also registered against the petitioner for carrying on bogus admissions and for having misappropriated funds. The charge sheet is produced at Ext.P6.

¶52

Despite the various serious

¶53

allegations,later, the Government by Ext.P8, directed reinstatement of the petitioner. The Manager filed a writ petition against Ext.P8 order, the copy of which is produced at Ext.P9. This Court in O.P. No.5428 of 1990 by Ext.P10 judgment dated 08.08.1995 set aside Ext.P8 order, directing reinstatement of the petitioner and thus allowed the Original

¶54

W.P.(C) No.11435 of 2001-J

¶55

¶56

Petition. The petitioner was directed to be kept under suspension and disciplinary proceedings were directed to be expedited by Ext.P10 judgment.

¶57

An appeal was filed by the petitioner, which was disposed of by Ext.P11 judgment, ie. on 07.11.1995. The Government was directed to

¶58

pass fresh orders on the application filed by the petitioner for reinstatement. Hence, modification was made to the learned Single Judge's judgment only to the effect of interfering with the direction to continue the petitioner in suspension. Expedition in completion of disciplinary proceedings was directed by the Division Bench also in Ext.P11 judgment.

¶59

Again, a fresh proceeding was issued at

¶60

Ext.P12 dated 14.10.1995 against the

¶61

W.P.(C) No.11435 of 2001-J

¶62

¶63

petitioner, on the very same allegations of misconduct. This was since the earlier proceeding had not continued after the issuance of charge sheet; since the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau had informed the Manager about initiation of a vigilance case against the teacher/petitioner and had directed the disciplinary proceedings to be kept in abeyance. After conduct of enquiry as against the charges levelled by Ext.P12, the Manager issued Ext.P18 show-cause notice dated 01.12.1995, seeking explanation from the petitioner why a punishment of removal from service shall not be ordered against the petitioner. The petitioner filed Ext.P19 explanation dated 18.12.1995.

¶64

In the meanwhile, the Government passed

¶65

W.P.(C) No.11435 of 2001-J

¶66

¶67

Ext.P20 G.O.(Rt) No.2397/96/GE dated

¶68

23.07.1996, by which the petitioner was

¶69

directed to be reinstated, in compliance with the judgment in WA No.1386 of 1995. The petitioner is said to have been reinstated, on the basis of the Ext.P20 order in the year 1996 as Assistant Teacher. O.P. No.12758 of 1996 filed by the Manager against Ext.P20 order was dismissed by Ext.P21 judgment dated 13.09.1996. The Manager reinstated the petitioner by Ext.P23 dated 04.12.1996.

¶70

On the disciplinary proceedings issued and the proposal of punishment of removal from service (Ext.P18), the Educational Authority, on the proposal being intimated to him, passed Ext.P24 order dated 28.12.1996. The allegations levelled against the petitioner were found to have been proved and found to be quite grave in

¶71

W.P.(C) No.11435 of 2001-J

¶72

¶73

nature. But considering the fact that the petitioner was a woman and that she was due to to retire in 1998, the Educational Authority directed that a minor punishment alone be imposed. By Ext.P25 dated 01.01.1998, the Manager issued a minor punishment of censure and the period of suspension was treated as eligible leave as ordered by the Government.

¶74

The petitioner was again before the Government, claiming that the period spent on suspension between 1986 and 1996 ought to be treated as duty. The Government by Ext.P32 G.O. (Rt) No.942/2000/GE dated 08.03.2000, rejected the claim of the petitioner to treat the period as duty, but directed that the period would be treated as 'leave without allowances' and also treated it as qualifying service for pension. The petitioner in the above writ petition

¶75

W.P.(C) No.11435 of 2001-J

¶76

¶77

challenges Exts.P23,24,25, 30 & 32.

¶78

Ext.P23 is the order of the Manager, reinstating the petitioner in service. The petitioner's claim is that the petitioner has to be posted as Headmistress and not as an Assistant Teacher. However, as found earlier, the claim of the petitioner that her relinquishment was one obtained on coercion, is grossly time barred. One another Teacher was also appointed as Headmaster in the year 1986, which was not challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner while suspended from service, was continuing as an Assistant Teacher. Hence, there can be no claim made for being appointed as a Headmistress.

¶79

Ext.P24 is the order of the Assistant Educational Officer (AEO), refusing to approve the punishment proposed for dismissal from

¶80

W.P.(C) No.11435 of 2001-J

¶81

¶82

service and the direction issued for imposing a minor penalty. The challenge against Ext.P24 purportedly is against the proceedings initiated against her.It is trite that this Court would not sit in appeal against the order passed in disciplinary proceedings. A mere reading of Ext.P24 order would indicate that there were serious charges alleged against the petitioner and they were found to be proved. It is a fact that no enquiry was conducted, but herein only a minor punihment was imposed. The petitioner was imposed with only a censure as per the directions of the AEO in Ext.P24. In such circumstance, Ext.P24 order of the AEO and the consequent punishment imposed of censure by Ext.P25 are to be upheld.

¶83

The further challenge is against Exts.P30 & 34. Ext.P30 was an order passed by

¶84

W.P.(C) No.11435 of 2001-J

¶85

¶86

the AEO, which declined the treatment of the period of suspension as duty. The AEO refused to interfere with the order,passed by the Government being GO(Rt) No.2397/95/GE dated 23.07.1996; rightly so. There can be no defect found in the action of the AEO, since he could not have sat in appeal over an order passed by the Government.

¶87

In any event, a representation filed before the Government ended in Ext.P32. The petitioner was found to have been charged with serious misconducts. Against which, even a criminal case was registered,which was later withdrawn by the Government. The Manager had challenged the said withdrawal, without success. The proceedings though concluded in the finding of guilt, only considering the impending retirement of the petitioner as also

¶88

W.P.(C) No.11435 of 2001-J

¶89

¶90

the fact that the petitioner was a woman, a minor punishment was directed to be imposed. The Government hence refused to deviate from its earlier order; but directed the suspension period to be treated as qualifying service for pension.

¶91

In the totality of the circumstances, this Court does not find any infirmity in the finding rendered by the Government in Ext.P32. It is to be noticed that the Government has directed the suspension period to be treated as qualifying service for pension. The suspension also was approved by the Educational Authority and at one stage when reinstatement was ordered, this Court had initially set it aside and directed continuance of the petitioner. However, in Writ Appeal the continuance under suspension was interfered with and a direction

¶92

W.P.(C) No.11435 of 2001-J

¶93

¶94

was issued to consider the matter afresh. The matter was considered afresh and reinstatement was ordered in 1996 and the petitioner taken back in service. There can be no defect found in treating the period of suspension as 'leave without allowances'. The writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and the same is dismissed.

¶95

The learned counsel, who appeared for the first respondent earlier, was present and he submitted that the first respondent was no more. The petitioner had also filed an impleading petition in the year 2013, seeking to implead the daughter of the Manager, in which no notice had been issued till date. This Court had heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and has decided the matter against the petitioner in the above writ petition. In such

¶96

W.P.(C) No.11435 of 2001-J

¶97

¶98

circumstance, considering the fact that the writ petition was pending all these years, there is no requirement for issuing any notice in the impleading petition.

¶99

The writ petition would stand dismissed, leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs.

¶100

Sd/-

¶101

K. VINOD CHANDRAN,

JUDGE.

//True Copy//

P.A. to Judge.

sp/31/03/16

Smt.M.Lalitha v. P.a.Cheriya Hassan Haji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.M.Lalitha v. P.a.Cheriya Hassan Haji

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

Ditty Tom Vs Sachidanandan

Krishnan K.V Vs P.Marykutty

G.Suma Vs State of Kerala

Shajahan E Vs R Rajesekharan Nair

Manager,St.Thomas Nursery Vs Asst.Educational Officer

D.Kalamony Vs the Secretary to Govt.