Remanded

Usha Louis L v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jan 2016WP(C)/37380/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court Held that the Deputy Director of Education failed to consider limited statutory jurisdiction in a suspension appeal, as he made final findings and allowed humanitarian grounds. The order was set aside and a fresh hearing ordered.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 19.10.2015 was set aside. A hearing before the 2nd Respondent was ordered within 27.1.2016, with final disposal within one week.

Usha Louis L Vs the State of Kerala — 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

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/22ND POUSHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 37380 of 2015 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

USHA LOUIS L AGED 55 YEARS HEADMISTRESS (UNDER SUSPENSION) LEO XIII HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PULLUVILA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 526.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR

¶9

SMT.SMITHA S.PILLAI

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER NEYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶14

THE MANAGER LEO XIII HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PULLUVILA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 526.

¶15

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶16

R1 TO R3 AND R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER M J RAJASREE R4 BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. R4 BY ADV. SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM) R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.GANESH

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-01-2016, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 39182/2015 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 37380 of 2015 (V)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXT.P1 : THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER NO.LEO XIII HSS/36/MANAGER, DT 22-9-2015 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER, LEO XIII HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PULLUVILA TO THE PETITIONER

¶22

EXT.P2 : THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMPLAINT NO.JACP/01/2015 DT 17-8-2015 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, JANASABDAM ACTION COUNCIL, PULLUVILA, TO THE PETITIONER.

¶23

EXT.P3 : THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DT 25-92015 BEFORE THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶24

EXT.P3(A) : THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DT 6-10-2015 TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, TRIVANDRUM.

¶25

EXT.P4 : THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B5/17765/2015/DDE DT 19-10-2015 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, TVM, TO THE PETITIONER.

¶26

EXT.P5 : THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 26-10-2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE REV.FR.MANAGER, LEO XIII, HSS PULLUVILA.

¶27

EXT.P6 : THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B1/6641/15 DT 27-10-2015 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, NEYYATTINKARA, TO THE SMT. BABY GIRIJA V.K. TEACHER IN CHARGE.

¶28

EXT.P7 : THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 28-1-2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION.

¶29

EXT.P8 : THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER NO.LEO XIII HSS/40/MANAGER DT 3-11-2015 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER, LEO XIII HSS PULLUVILA TO THE PETITIONER.

¶30

EXT.P9 : THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 11-11-2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE EDUCATION SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶31

EXT.P10 : THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 11-11-2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶32

EXT.P11 : THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 5-11-2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE HON'BLE EDUCATION MINISTER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶33

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A TO JUDGE

jma

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J

W.P(C) Nos.37380 of 2015 & 39182 of 2015

¶40

¶41

Dated this the 12^th day of January, 2016

¶42

The two writ petitions are filed by the Head Mistress

¶43

(HM) and the Manager of an aided school challenging order No. B5/17765/2015/DDE dated 19.10.2015 produced as Ext.P4 in WP(C) No. 37380/2015 (Ext.P2 in W.P(C) No.39182/2015).

¶44

The HM seeks implementation of that order but also assail the findings entered into by the Deputy Director of Education (DDE), which according to the learned Senior Counsel would cause prejudice to her since they are in the nature of findings; which could not have been entered into at the stage of considering the justifiability of the suspension.

¶45

The Manager, by the other writ petition challenges

¶46

the aforesaid order and in the alternative seek consideration of the

¶47

revision filed and pray that the order of revocation of suspension

¶48

be kept in abeyance in the meanwhile.

¶49

WPC.Nos.37380/2015 & 39182/2015

¶50

: 2 :

¶51

The subject order has been passed by the Deputy

¶52

Director of Education on a statutory appeal filed by the HM against the order of suspension and also an application filed by the Manager for extending the period of suspension. The application for approval filed by the Manager is under Rule 67(8) and the appeal filed by the HM is under Rule 79 of Chapter XIV A of Kerala Education Rules (hereinafter referred to as “KER” only). Though the HM seeks implementation of Ext.P4, she also challenges the findings in the order insofar as the same being prejudicial to her interest, for reason of the educational authority having rendered absolute findings; in an appeal filed wherein the suspension alone was challenged. The respondent Manger however, challenges Ext.P4, on the ground that humanitarian considerations alone regulated the operative portion of the order while there were clear findings rendered in Ext.P4, which would justify the suspension order passed.

¶53

On a reading of the order passed by the Deputy

¶54

WPC.Nos.37380/2015 & 39182/2015

¶55

: 3 :

¶56

Director of Education, this Court has to accept the contention raised by the Manager as also the HM. Whether it be Rule 67(8) or an appeal under Rule 79 of Chapter XIV of the KER, what the DDE

¶57

has to consider is only whether the suspension is justified, on facts. Though he could look into the allegations levelled and enter into a prima facie observation, the same cannot be to the extent that has been stated in Ext.P4 finding the HM guilty of the offences alleged. Then again, the reason for ordering the suspension to be revoked, was on humanitarian grounds and since the petitioner was to retire from service shortly. Such consideration would not be proper especially when the DDE is exercising a statutory function; under sub rule (8) of Rule 67 or under Rule 79 of Chapter XIV A.

¶58

What is required is a preliminary investigation into

¶59

the circumstances that led to the suspension and a prima facie satisfaction as to whether the measure of suspension was warranted or not. In such circumstance, the order of the DDE dated 19.10.2015, is set aside. Both the Manager and the HM or their

¶60

WPC.Nos.37380/2015 & 39182/2015

¶61

: 4 :

¶62

authorised representative, shall appear before the 2^nd respondent on 19.01.2016 and the office of the DDE shall give a date of hearing within 27.1.2016. The matter shall be finally disposed of within a period of one week from the date of hearing. No further investigation is necessary since already the same has been conducted.

¶63

Writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.

¶64

Sd/-

¶65

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy//

¶66

P. A to Judge

Usha Louis L v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usha Louis L v. the 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

N.v.Lal Vs Smt. Vasumathy

T.V Sasidharan Nair Vs v. Ratheesh

P.N.Gopi Vs State of Kerala

Raveendran P.S. Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Ajith S Vs State of Kerala

Alphonsa Neenu Michael Vs the Employment Exchange Officer