Point of Law: Rule 65 is only a provision which prescribes various penalties that could be imposed upon teachers of aided schools.

JUDGMENT :

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

The question raised in this appeal is whether a teacher in an aided school governed by the Kerala Education Act (the Act) and the Kerala Education Rules (the KER), can be dismissed from service on the basis of his conviction in a criminal case, without following the procedures prescribed under Rules 65, 74 and 75 of Chapter XIVA KER.

2. The appellant was the petitioner in the writ petition from which the appeal arises. On his conviction in a criminal case, the appellant was dismissed from service without following the procedures prescribed in Rules 65, 74 and 75. The writ petition was instituted challenging the dismissal of the appellant on the ground that a teacher in an aided school governed by the Act and the KER cannot be dismissed from service, even on the basis of his conviction in a criminal case, without following the procedures prescribed in Rules 65, 74 and 75. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage itself, relegating the appellant to the alternative remedy available to him. The appellant is aggrieved by the said decision of the learned Single Judge.

3. As the writ petition was one instituted raising a pure question of law, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge ought to have entertained the writ petition and decided the question not only for the purpose of giving a quietus to the dispute, but also for setting a precedent for others to follow in identical situations, as the authorities under the Act before whom the appellant could approach for resolving the dispute are not legally trained to decide such questions. It is now settled that a judicially trained mind with the experience of deciding questions of law is a sine qua non for ensuring correctness in the decisions on pure questions of law [See Madras Bar Assn. v. Union of India, (2014) 10 SCC 1]. It is all the more so, as Judges are trained to look at things objectively, uninfluenced by consideration of policy or expediency and the authorities under the Act being only officers exercising quasi-judicial functions, looks at things generally from the stand point of policy and expediency [See M.P. Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (1966) 1 SCR 466].

4. Let us, therefore, resolve the dispute in this proceedings itself. The appellant was a drawing teacher in an aided school. He was suspended from service by the Manager of the School on 15.02.2020 on a serious allegation that he had shown to a girl child, obscene pictures while conducting classes. Although disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant on the aforesaid charge later, the same was not continued and he was reinstated in service awaiting the decision of the court in the criminal case registered against him on the very same allegation. On 16.12.2022, in terms of Ext.P5 judgment, the criminal court convicted the appellant under Section 354(A)(1)(i) and (iii) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 10 read with Section 9(f) and (m) and Section 12 read with Section 11(iii) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (the POCSO Act) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-each under Section 10 read with Section 9(f) and (m) of the POCSO Act and rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-under Section 12 read with Section 11(iii) of the POCSO Act. Though the appellant preferred an appeal before this Court against his conviction and sentence, this Court did not suspend his conviction. Inasmuch as the conviction of the appellant was not suspended, the Manager dismissed the appellant from service solely based on his conviction as per Ext.P7 order. Ext.P7 order was under challenge in the writ petition.

5. Rule 65 which prescribes the penalties that could be imposed on teachers of aided schools provides that no punishment shall be imposed without giving the person affected an opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken. Ru