Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Ker) 349

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The Corporate Manager, Corporate Educational Agency Of The Diocese Of Kanjirappally And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State Of Kerala, Rep.By Secretary To Government General Education Dept. And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C).No.25181 OF 2012(W)
Decided On : 04-03-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri.Kurian George Kannanthanam (Sr.), Sri.Thomas George, Sri.Tony George Kannanthanam
For the Respondent: Sri.P.M.Manoj-Sr.Gp

The suspension of a teacher under the Kerala Education Act is permissible only when a disciplinary action is either contemplated or continuing, and the period of suspension should be treated as duty if no disciplinary action is taken.

Headnote:
Suspension - Teacher - Kerala Education Act, Section 12A - Summary
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenged the suspension of a teacher based on unsubstantiated allegations. The teacher was reinstated but the period of suspension was irregularly treated as 'half pay leave' and 'loss of pay leave'.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that no disciplinary action was initiated against the teacher, and the suspension was not in accordance with the Kerala Education Act.
Issues: Validity of suspension, regularisation of suspension period, and treatment of suspension period as duty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that suspension of a teacher is permissible only when a disciplinary action is either contemplated or continuing, as per Section 12A of the Kerala Education Act. The court also found that the period of suspension should be treated as duty if no disciplinary action is taken.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the suspension orders, and quashed the irregular treatment of the suspension period. The District Educational Officer was directed to issue fresh orders regularizing the suspension period as duty and ensure benefits are provided to the teacher within three months.

JUDGMENT :

The Manager of the Corporate Educational Agency of the Diocese of Kanjirappally, as the first petitioner; and Sr.Thresiamma T.D., who is working as a Lower Primary School Teacher (LPST) in the “St.Antony's High School” managed by the said Corporate Agency, as the second petitioner, has approached this Court impugning Exts.P9 and P17 orders, through which, the latter has been placed under suspension on various allegations, including that the third respondent – National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NPCR) has recommended the same, since she had caned certain students.

2. The petitioners say that even though no disciplinary action was in contemplation or had been initiated at the relevant time or even thereafter until today, the second petitioner was placed under suspension without any valid or cogent reason, merely based on the unsubstantiated allegations against her which, she says, has been proved to be baseless when one examines the final report settled by the Police, namely Ext.P18.

3. The petitioners, thereafter, say that, on the basis of an interim order of this Court dated 17.12.2012, the second petitioner was reinstated in service, but that no action was subsequently taken to have the period of 131 days, when she was kept illegally under suspension, regularised. They submit that, however, pending this lis, the District Educational Officer (DEO) has issued Ext.P19, whereby, the afore period of 131 days has been regularised, treating the first hundred days as being “half pay leave” and the balance 31 days as “loss of pay leave”. The petitioners contend that this order is wholly illegal and unlawful; and thus pray that Exts.P9 and P17 be set aside, as also the consequential Ext.P19 order of the DEO; and to direct the respondents to treat the entire period of suspension of the second petitioner as being duty.

4. I have heard Sri.Kurian George Kannanthanam, learned senior counsel, instructed by Sri.Tony George Kannanthanam, appearing for the petitioners and Sri.P.M.Manoj, the learned Senior Government Pleader.

5. Sri.P.M.Manoj submitted that the second petitioner's suspension was warranted on account of the various allegations against her; but to a pointed question, conceded that no disciplinary action was ever initiated against her and that not even a Charge Memo was issued. He submitted that, however, since the second petitioner was reinstated in service consequent to the interim order of this Court dated 17.12.2012, instructions were given by the competent Authority to the DEO to regularise the period of suspension as per the provisions of the applicable law. He submitted that it is in such circumstances, that Ext.P19 has been issued. He, therefore prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

6. I am afraid that I cannot find favour with the afore submissions made on behalf of the official respondents by the learned Senior Government Pleader, since it is without any doubt that the provisions of the Kerala Education Act, particularly Section 12A thereof, make it clear that the suspension of a teacher is permissible only when a disciplinary action is either contemplated or is continuing. This is unmistakable from the tenor of Section 12A of the Act which is as under:

“12A. Disciplinary powers of Government over Teachers of aided schools: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 11 or section 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.

(2) The Government or the Officer authorised under sub-section (1) 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 that sub-section or when such disciplinary proceedi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document