Judges : P.T.RAMAN NAYAR
Re - Appellant
Versus
Fr.K.T.Zacharia - Respondent
Case No : O. P. No. 1478 of 1962
Decided On : 06/06/1962
Advocates Appeared :
Kalathil Velayudhan Nair; K. V. Kuriakose; For Appellant
R.67 (4) - Kerala Education Rules - The court found that R.67 (4) of Chapter XIV (A) of the Kerala Education Rules is not ultra vires S.12 (2) of the Kerala Education Act. The rule allows for a formal inquiry by a departmental officer into the grounds for suspension, which is consistent with the section denying the manager the power to suspend for more than 15 days without previous sanction.
Fact of the Case:
The Deputy Director held an inquiry as required by R.67 (4) obtaining statements from the accused headmaster. The petitioner manager declined to participate and adduced no evidence in support of the charge on which he had suspended the headmaster.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition, affirming the validity of the inquiry conducted by the Deputy Director and the suspension of the headmaster.
Issues: Validity of the inquiry conducted by the Deputy Director and the suspension of the headmaster.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that R.67 (4) of the Kerala Education Rules is not ultra vires S.12 (2) of the Kerala Education Act, and the inquiry conducted by the Deputy Director was in compliance with the rules.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, upholding the validity of the inquiry and the suspension of the headmaster.
1. I do not think R.67 (4) of Chapter XIV (A) of the Kerala Education Rules is ultra vires S.12 (2) of the Kerala Education Act whatever one might think of the wisdom or practicability of a rule contemplating a formal inquiry by a departmental officer into the grounds for the suspension, in other words into the charges against the alleged delinquent, in the same manner as for imposing a penalty on the charges, for the purpose of deciding whether a suspension pending inquiry ordered by the manager (the duration of which suspension is, in any event, limited to 15 days) was proper or not. (Ordinarily the 15 days would have expired even before the departmental officer proceeded to hold the inquiry, & I should have thought that in no case could the inquiry be completed within the 15 days if the procedure in R.76 (2) & (3) were to be followed. And this inquiry to be followed by another formal inquiry into the charge under R.76(1). For, I do not read S.12 (2) as giving a manager a power of suspension up to 15 days. What it does is to deny him any power to suspend for more than 15 days without previous sanction, and a rule which says that even suspension for a period not exceeding 15 days is subject to regulation by departmental officers is by no means inconsistent with the section. It is a cumulative provision, well within the rule making power given by S.36. And, as for the allegation that before making the impugned order, Ex. P6, the Deputy Director did not hold an inquiry as required by R.67 (4), the order shows that he did hold such an inquiry obtaining statements from the accused headmaster, and that the petitioner manager, who declined to participate, adduced no evidence whatsoever in support of the charge on which he had thought fit to suspend the headmaster.
I dismiss the petition.
Dismissed.
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.