Secretary, Board of Management, Chinmaya Vidyalaya v. District Educational Officer

Kerala HC20 Dec 2018WP(C)/11187/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the District Educational Officer can order reinstatement of teachers. The impugned orders were set aside for not addressing the validity of the domestic enquiry, requiring the Officer to scrutinize it within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders setting aside management's dismissal orders and directing reinstatement were set aside; the District Educational Officer was directed to decide on the validity of the domestic enquiry

Secretary, Board of Management, Chinmaya Vidyalaya Vs… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No.10048 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 DHANANJAYAN K.

¶8

RADHA VILLA, VIKAS NAGAR, CHAKKORATHUKULAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN 673 005.

¶9

2 JISHA SUKUMARAN 'SREENADAM' 28/646-A, CHEVAYOOR P.O, KOZHIKODE, PIN 673 017.

¶10

3 SUJA C.K 33/4999A, SUCHAND, YAMUNA NAGAR, CHEVAYOOR P.O, KOZHIKODE, PIN 673 017.

BY ADVS.

SRI.R.V.SREEJITH

SMT.G.MAHESWARY

RESPONDENTS:

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

¶16

2 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC EDUCATION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 014.

¶17

3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION KOZHIKODE, PIN 673 001.

¶18

4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KOZHIKODE, PIN 673 001.

¶19

5 CHINMAYA VIDYALAYA UNAIDED ENGLISH HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER(SECRETARY), NELLIKKODE, KOZHIKODE, PIN 673 016.

¶20

BY ADV.

¶21

SRI.K.B.GANGESH

¶22

W.P.(C) No.10048 & 11187/2018

¶23

¶24

OTHER PRESENT:

¶25

SRI.S.GOPINATHAN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.12.2018, ALONG WITH WP(C)No.11187/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

W.P.(C) No.10048 & 11187/2018

¶28

¶29

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶30

PRESENT

¶31

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶32

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶33

WP(C).No.11187 of 2018

¶34

PETITIONER:

¶35

SECRETARY, BOARD OF MANAGEMENT, CHINMAYA VIDYALAYA, NELLIKODE, KOZHIKODE.

¶36

BY ADVS. SRI.K.B.GANGESH SMT.ATHIRA A.MENON SMT.SMITHA CHATHANARAMBATH

¶37

RESPONDENTS:

¶38

1 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,

¶39

KOZHIKODE - 673 001.

¶40

2 DHANANJAYAN.K

¶41

RADHA VILA, VIKAS NAGAR, CHAKKORATHUKULAM, KOZHIKODE - 673 005.

¶42

3 JISHA SUKUMARAN

¶43

“SREENADAM”, 28/646-A, CHEVAYOOR P.O, KOZHIKODE 673 017.

¶44

4 SUJA C.K 33/4999A, SUCHAND, YAMUNA NAGAR, CHEVAYOOR, KOZHIKODE 673 017.

¶45

BY SRI.S.GOPINATHAN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶46

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.12.2018, ALONG WITH WP(C)No.10048/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶47

W.P.(C) No.10048 & 11187/2018

¶48

¶49

J U D G M E N T

¶50

These writ petitions concern an order passed by the District Educational Officer, Kozhikode. The matter related to disciplinary action against teachers in Chinmaya Vidyalaya, a recognised unaided school under the Kerala Education Rules. The statutory provision as referable under the Kerala Education Rules is prescribed in Chapter XIVAA. Rule 3 of Chapter XIVAA of Kerala Education Rules reads as follows:

¶51

“3. The services of any member of the teacher or nonteaching staff shall not be terminated by the management without conducting a domestic enquiry and without giving the member an opportunity of being heard in that enquiry”.

¶52

The above provision states that disciplinary action can be taken

¶53

only after conducting domestic enquiry. In an earlier round of litigation, this Court interfered with the termination and ordered domestic enquiry in

¶54

terms of Rule 3. The domestic enquiry was conducted. The teachers were found guilty and penalty of dismissal was imposed. The teachers took up the matter before the District Educational Officer. The District Educational Officer passed Exts.P17 and P18 orders produced in W.P. (C) No.11187 of 2018. By Ext.P17 order, the District Educational Officer directed the management to review the decision of dismissal. Thereafter

¶55

W.P.(C) No.10048 & 11187/2018

¶56

¶57

it was followed by Ext.P8 order directing the management to reinstate the teachers on service.

¶58

The legality of the orders passed by the District Educational

¶59

Officer is questioned by the management in W.P.(C) No.11187 of 2018. The teachers filed W.P.(C) No.10048 of 2018 to implement the orders of the District Educational Officer.

¶60

Learned counsel for the Manager argued that the District Educational Officer has no power to order reinstatement. Once domestic enquiry was conducted and action was initiated, no power is vested with the District Educational Officer to interfere with such enquiry.

¶61

Per contra, learned counsel for the teachers would argue that the District Educational Officer has all the power as referrable under the Rules to interfere with such action of the management.

¶62

I have gone through the orders. No reason has been assigned to find fault with the domestic enquiry conducted. The enquiry of the District Educational Officer primarily has to focus on the legality of the same. The question interfering with the penalty imposed would arise only after examination of the validity of the domestic enquiry. Whether

¶63

the District Educational Officer has power to order reinstatement or not is a legal question to be decided. However, taking note of the fact that no

¶64

W.P.(C) No.10048 & 11187/2018

¶65

¶66

decision has been taken by the District Educational Officer in regard to the validity of the domestic enquiry, that question can be left open.

¶67

Learned counsel for the Manager would submit that the validity

¶68

of domestic enquiry cannot be looked into by the District Educational Officer.

¶69

I must repel this argument. The very purpose of the stipulation in Rule 3 that a domestic enquiry has to be conducted is to protect a teacher from unreasonable and illegal termination from service. Domestic enquiry as referred under Rule 3 should be a genuine one complying with all the principles of natural justice. The Law never intend to absolve a Manager merely on the ground that he has conducted domestic enquiry. It should be a domestic enquiry complying with the legal parameters.

¶70

There are two stipulations in Rule 3; i) conduct of domestic enquiry and ii) giving an opportunity of being heard in that enquiry. Both the stipulations are cumulative. I am of the view that the District Educational Officer has to be satisfied with the conduct of domestic enquiry.

¶71

Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned orders have to be set aside. Accordingly, they are set aside. The question whether what

¶72

W.P.(C) No.10048 & 11187/2018

¶73

¶74

follow up action can be taken up in case domestic enquiry is found vitiated is a matter that can be decided at appropriate stage. Needful shall be done by the District Educational Officer, after hearing both sides,

¶75

within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶76

These writ petitions are disposed of as above.

¶77

Sd/-

¶78

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶79

JUDGE

¶80

smp

¶81

W.P.(C) No.10048 & 11187/2018

¶82

¶83

APPENDIX OF WP(C) No.10048/2018

¶84

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶85

EXHIBIT P1 THE ISSU	TRUE COPY ED TO THE	OF THE 2ND PET	SHOW CAUSE NOTICES ITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 THE ISSU	TRUE COPY ED TO THE	OF THE 1ST PET	SHOW CAUSE NOTICES ITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 THE ISSU	TRUE COPY ED TO THE	OF THE 3RD PET	SHOW CAUSE NOTICES ITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 THE BY T	TRUE COPY HE 1ST PET	OF THE ITIONER	EXPLANATIONS SUBMITTED .
EXHIBIT P5 THE BY T	TRUE COPY HE 2ND PET	OF THE ITIONER	EXPLANATIONS SUBMITTED .
EXHIBIT P6 THE 1ST	TRUE COPY PETITIONER	OF CHAR DATED	GE SHEET ISSUED TO THE 07.03.2016.
EXHIBIT P7 THE 2ND	TRUE COPY PETITIONER	OF CHAR DATED	GE SHEET ISSUED TO THE 07.03.2016.
EXHIBIT P8 THE 3RD	TRUE COPY PETITIONER	OF CHAR DATED	GE SHEET ISSUED TO THE 07.03.2016.
EXHIBIT P9 THE 1ST	TRUE COPY PETITIONER	OF THE .	REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE
EXHIBIT P10 THE 2ND	TRUE COPY PETITIONER	OF THE .	REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE
EXHIBIT P11 THE 3RD	TRUE COPY PETITIONER	OF THE .	REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE
EXHIBIT P12 THE DATE	TRUE COPY D 17.06.20	OF THE 16.	ORDER NO.B4-4915/15
EXHIBIT P13 THE NO.2	TRUE COPY 1555/2016	OF THE DATED 1	JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 9.12.2016.
EXHIBIT P14 THE BY T	TRUE COPY HE 1ST PET	OF THE ITIONER	EXPLANATION SUBMITTED .
EXHIBIT P15 THE TO T	TRUE COPY HE 1ST PET	OF THE ITIONER	DISMISSAL ORDER ISSUED .

¶86

W.P.(C) No.10048 & 11187/2018

¶87

¶88

EXHIBIT	P16	THE TRUE TO THE 2N	COPY OF THE D PETITIONER	DISMISSAL ORDER ISSUED .
EXHIBIT	P17	THE TRUE TO THE 3R	COPY OF THE D PETITIONER	DISMISSAL ORDER ISSUED .
EXHIBIT	P18	THE TRUE PETITION	COPY OF THE SUBMITTED BY	RELEVANT PORTION OF THE THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT	P19	THE TRUE 4915/15 D RESPONDEN	COPY OF THE ATED 27.02.2 T.	ORDER NO.K.DIS. B4- 018 OF THE 1ST
EXHIBIT	P20	THE TRUE K.DIS B4-	COPY OF THE 4915/15 DATE	CLARIFICATION ORDER NO. D 06.03.2018.
EXHIBIT RESPONDE	P21 NTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.	THE TRUE WITH THE	COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVID	REPRESENTATION ALONG ENCING THIS SUBMISSION.

True Copy

P.S to Judge

smp

W.P.(C) No.10048 & 11187/2018

¶93

¶94

¶95

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶96

EXT.P1	TRUE COPY OF 14/11/2015 I	SHOWCAUSE NOTICE DATED SSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2	TRUE COPY OF PREFERRED BY HEADMISTRESS	REPLY DATED 25/11/2015 THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE OF THE SCHOOL.
EXT.P3	TRUE COPY OF WITH STATEME RESPONDENT A 07/03/2016.	MEMORANDUM OF CHARGES ALONG NT OF ALLEGATIONS ISSUED TO 3RD LONG WITH COVERING LETTER DATED
EXT.P4	TRUE COPY OF COURT IN WPC	THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE .21555/2016 DATED 19/12/2016
EXT.P5	TRUE COPY OF SUBMITTED BY MEMO.	REPLY DATED 09/01/2017 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE CHARGE
EXT.P6	TRUE COPY OF SUBMITTED BY MEMO.	REPLY DATED 06/01/2017 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE CHARGE
EXT.P7	TRUE COPY OF SUBMITTED BY MEMO.	REPLY DATED 09/01/2017 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE CHARGE
EXT.P8	TRUE COPY OF SUBMITTED BY	ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 10/04/2017 ADVOCATE T.P. SUDHEER KUMAR.
EXT.P9	TRUE COPY OF 15/04/2017 I	SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED SSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P10	TRUE COPY OF SUBMITTED BY	LETTER DATED 19/04/2017 THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P11	TRUE COPY OF PREFERRED BY	REPLY DATED 24/04/2017 THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P12	TRUE COPY OF BY THE PETIT	LETTER DATED 03/05/2017 ISSUED IONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P13	TRUE COPY OF PREFERRED BY	REPLY DATED 10/05/2017 THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶97

W.P.(C) No.10048 & 11187/2018

¶98

¶99

EXT.P14	TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 22/05/2017 PREFERRED BY SMT. DEEPTHI TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P15	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 26/05/2017 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P16	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 21/06/2017 PREFERRED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P17	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 27/02/2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P18	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 06/03/2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶100

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

¶101

True Copy

¶102

P.S to Judge

¶103

smp

Secretary, Board of Management, Chinmaya Vidyalaya v. District Educational Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Secretary, Board of Management, Chinmaya Vidyalaya v. District Educational Officer

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

Jo John Vs Dr. David Peter S.

Rasheedha Beegum K.M Vs State of Kerala

Seema Karimbil Vs State of Kerala

Manju K.P. Vs the Manager

Rijo M.J Vs Government of Kerala

Dhananjayan K. Vs State of Kerala