Point of Law: Employment - Investigation - Order of Suspension of Teacher cannot cancel - Preliminary investigation, contemplated under said sub-rule, is to satisfy controlling officer about necessity or need for suspending teacher. It is not conclusive or binding upon disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

1. By an order under Rule 67(8) of the Kerala Education Rules 1959, the 1st respondent directed the appellant to reinstate a teacher, after canceling an order of suspension. Though the appellant challenged the said order in the writ petition, the learned Single Judge dismissed the same against which this appeal is preferred.

2. Ext.P6 order issued by the 1st respondent was impugned in the writ petition. By Ext.P4, the appellant had placed the 3rd respondent-teacher under suspension on 13-02-2020 due to the registration of a crime. The 1st respondent cancelled the order of suspension by the order impugned in the writ petition. Finding that the suspension was imposed by Ext.P4 without considering any of the factual situations and without a preliminary enquiry, the 1st respondent, observed in Ext.P6 that, the alleged assault was not proved and that the frequent initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the 3rd respondent without adhering to the Kerala Education Rules was also adversely affecting the smooth academic atmosphere of the school apart from creating headache to the department. On the above reasoning, the order suspending the 3rd respondent was cancelled.

3. The primary contention raised by the appellant was that the Manager can place a teacher under suspension at any time, as per rule 67(1)(b) of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (for short ‘KER’) and that when a criminal case is registered against the teacher, the manager has the authority and discretion to suspend the teacher and further that when such an order of suspension is issued, the same could not have been interfered with by the 1st respondent. It was also pleaded that the correctness or otherwise of the allegations that led to the registration of a crime ought not to have been gone into by the 1st respondent while passing the order under Rule 67(8) of KER and also that the finding by the 1st respondent that the incident as alleged, had not occurred, was beyond the authority of the 1st respondent.

4. The learned single Judge on a consideration of the entire factual situation that arose and after referring to the statutory provisions, concluded that the order suspending the 3rd respondent did not record the satisfaction of the manager and that it was necessary in public interest to keep the 3rd respondent under suspension. The learned Single Judge further observed that in a case where the crime was registered, the same by itself does not provide a ground for automatic suspension unlike in a case where there is detention and custody for a period exceeding 48 hours. After elaborate consideration of the factual situation arising in the case, the learned single Judge found that Ext.P6 does not warrant any interference and on the other hand, it was held that the appellant was duty-bound to reinstate the 3rd respondent in service.

5. The learned Senior Counsel Adv. K. Gopalakrishna Kurup duly assisted by Adv. Susy George Poothicote, vehemently contended that, the learned Single Judge failed to consider the statutory provisions in the correct perspective and that in the nature of the offence alleged against the 3rd respondent, the suspension was inevitable. It was also argued by the learned Senior Counsel that Rule 67 of Chapter XIVA of KER was not properly appreciated by the learned single Judge. Relying upon the decision in Meenakshi vs. State of Kerala, 2020 (5) KLT 166, it was argued that the investigation contemplated under Rule 67(8) was not the same as the enquiry mentioned under rule 75 of Chapter XIVA of KER.

6. Adv. Manu Govind, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent contended that the action of the appellant was tainted with mala-fides, especially since on an earlier occasion when proceedings were initiated against the 3rd respondent, the Government interfered and directed reinstatement. By Ext.R3(a) judgment, this Court confirmed the said order. The 3rd respondent was initially placed under suspension in