IMPORTANT POINT
The scope of Rule 7 of Chapter III is, therefore, clearly with regard to malpractice, corruption or maladministration, negligence of duty, disobedience, denial of appointment, offences involving moral turpitude etc as also the enumerated misconducts as provided in the Rule-The petitioner had not been put on notice specifically of any action against him in terms of Chapter III Rule 7 of KER-Specific notice pointing out the instances for disqualification of a Manager in terms of Rule 7 is a pre requisite before any action can be taken against the Manager.

JUDGMENT :

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

(i) To call for the records leading to Exhibit P12 and quash the same by the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari.

(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue as Manager of MAM UP School, Parambilkadavu and AM LP School, Parambil.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for the additional 5th respondent.

3. The petitioner, who is the Secretary of the Muhammed Abdurahman Memorial Higher Elementary School Committee, has been appointed as Manager of the MAM UP School, Parambilkadavu by virtue of his office as Secretary. It is stated that he was elected as Secretary on 01.08.1997 and his appointment as Manager of the MAM UP School, Parambilkadavu was approved by the 4th respondent by Ext.P2 proceedings dated 16.10.1997. It is stated that the Committee later acquired another School i.e. AM LP School, Parambil and the prior permission for acquisition was accorded by Ext.P3 proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 08.01.2008. Later, the petitioner was accorded approval as Manager of the said School also by Ext.P4 order of the 4th respondent dated 08.02.2008. It is submitted that the combined staff list of both the Schools was published by the petitioner. It is submitted that the Headmaster of the MAM UP School had approached this Court with regard to transfer from one School to another and Exts.P6 and P7 proceedings came to be issued treating both the Schools as a single unit. It is stated that, in the meanwhile, the additional 5th respondent had submitted a complaint dated 20.06.2018 against the functioning of the petitioner as the Manager of the School. Based on the complaint, it is stated that an enquiry was conducted by the 4th respondent and a report was submitted to the 3rd respondent without notice to the petitioner. A copy of the report was, thereafter, forwarded to the petitioner with Ext.P8 covering letter dated 23.02.2019. A hearing notice was issued to the petitioner on 24.06.2019. The hearing notice refers to the taking over of the Management of the Parambilkadavu MAM UP School. It is submitted that the petitioner had submitted objections and had also submitted a detailed hearing note at the time of the hearing, which was ultimately conducted on 04.01.2020. Ext.P10 is the hearing note. It is submitted that Ext.P11 consent letter issued by the members of the Committee had also been produced before the 3rd respondent, who had conducted the hearing. However, by Ext.P12 order dated 22.01.2020 relying on the complaint of the 5th respondent as well as another undisclosed complaint submitted by the President of the Kuruvattoor Grama Panchayath and the report of the 4th respondent as well as an endorsement by the Educational Minister, steps have now been taken to disqualify the petitioner relying on Rule 7 of Chapter III of the Kerala Education Rules.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the action is completely vitiated in so far as the petitioner has not been put on notice of any action proposed under Rule 7 of Chapter III of the KER. It is submitted that the petitioner had not been served with a copy of the complaint of the 5th respondent or the complaint allegedly submitted by the President of the Panchayath or any of the materials, which were relied on as against him. It is further submitted that a reading of Ext.P12 would go to show that the allegations found to be substantiated against the petitioner do not fall within any of the enumerated items of the misconduct, negligence, disobedience etc as are provided in Rule 7 of Chapter III and without any such allegations as against the petitioner, the action in terms of Rule 7, Chapter III was completely unjustified and without jurisdiction. It is further submitted that had the petitioner been given a proper notice of any of the allegations in terms of Rule 7,