Judges : K.BHASKARAN,M.P.MENON
GEETHAKUMARI - Appellant
Versus
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION - Respondent
Case No : W.A. No. 283, 285, 295, 296 of 1984
Decided On : 07/11/1984
Advocates Appeared :
P.K. Appa Nair, K.P. Dandapani; S. Easwara Iyer etc. ; For Appellants Government Pleader; For Respondents
Disciplinary Action - Suspension - Kerala Education Act, Section 12A
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a teacher in an aided school, was suspended pending disciplinary action by the Director of Public Instruction. The petitioner challenged the suspension through a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Director had the power to suspend the teacher under Section 12A of the Kerala Education Act, and the suspension was in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
Issues: The main issue was whether the suspension of the teacher was valid under the Kerala Education Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 12A of the Act and held that the Director had the authority to suspend a teacher pending disciplinary proceedings, and the prescribed procedure had been followed.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the suspension of the teacher was upheld.
1. These writ appeals were heard and are being disposed of by this common judgment in as much as the question of jaw raised in all the writ appeals is the same.
2. For the sake of convenience, we would refer to the facts of the case as stated in O.P. No. 5315 of 1984, from which writ appeal No. 283 of 1984 has been filed.
3. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner had been working as a teacher in Kolakkad Aided U.P. School, Kolakkad in Kozhikode District. She had passed SSLC. which is the qualifying examination for teachers' training course. She had also undergone teacher's training in the State of Karnataka, and ultimately a certificate known as Teacher's Certificate Higher (T.C.H.) has been issued to her. When matters stood like this, by Ext. P6 proceedings of the 1st respondent. Director of Public Instruction, dated 8-6-1984 the petitioner has been placed under suspension pending disciplinary action. It is to challenge the proceedings of the first respondent, the writ petition has been filed.
4. Shri P. K. Appa Nair, the counsel for the appellants, submitted that Ext. P6 order has been passed by the first respondent without jurisdiction, or at any rate, he has acted in excess of the jurisdiction vested in him. Ext. P6 purports to have been issued by the first respondent in exercise of the power vested in him under sub-section (2) of S.12A of the Kerala Education Act (the Act) read with R.67 (2) (a) of the Kerala Education Rules (the Rules). The submission made by Sri. Appa Nair is that S.12A of the Act contemplates disciplinary action against the teacher to be taken by the Manager; and it is only in case the Manager fails to act in compliance with the intimation of the circumstances requiring him to take such disciplinary action received from the Government or the authorised officer, that the latter could take action, and therefore, the order of suspension passed by the Ist respondent, Director, is without jurisdiction and as such liable to be quashed. For the sake of convenience, we would extract the provisions of S.12A of the
Act:
12A. Disciplinary powers of Government over teachers of aided schools: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in S.11 or S.12 and subject to such rules as may be prescribed, the Government or such officer, not below the rank of an Educational Officer, as may be, authorised by the Government in this behalf, shall have power to take disciplinary proceedings against a teacher of an aided school and to impose upon him all or any of the penalties specified in the Rules made under this Act."
5. It may at once be noticed that the first respondent has made it very clear in Ext P6 proceedings that the order of suspension passed by him, was in exercise of the power vested in him under sub-section (2) of S.12A of the Act. What that sub-section lays down is that either the Government or the officer authorised in that behalf, as the case may be, may suspend a teacher of an aided school when any disciplinary proceedings is proposed to be taken against him under sub-section (1) or when such disciplinary proceedings are pending. All that is required to attract the provisions of subsection (2) of S.12A is that disciplinary proceedings must be proposed to be taken against the teacher. It would be wrong to construe that the proviso (a) to sub-section (2) of S.12A of the Act qualifies or controls sub-section (2) of S.12A of the Act. In terms, the proviso refers only to disciplinary proceedings under sub-section (1) of that section, without making any reference to suspension, when disciplinary proceedings were proposed to be taken or during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings. There is no warrant for the view that the intimation should precede the order of suspension. In our opinion, the Government or the authorised officer, as the case may be, would be within its or his rights to pass an order of suspension, as soon as it was decided by it or him to intimate the manager regarding the circu
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.