IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the necessity of extending the suspension of an employee pending enquiry when prima facie evidence of misconduct exists, emphasizing the importance of maintaining discipline in educational institutions.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 5 ^th day of March, 2025 The petitioner, who is the Manager of Raja Ravi Varma Girls Higher Secondary School, Kilimanoor, has approached this Court seeking to declare that the continued suspension of the 4 ^th respondent till the completion of enquiry is legally justified as per Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIVA of KER, considering the allegations and facts of the case. The petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P6 and to direct the 1 ^st respondent to allow the petitioner to place the 4 ^th respondent under suspension beyond the period of 15 days as mandated under Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIVA of KER.

2. The petitioner states that from 07.01.2025, the Attendance Register of Plus One Commerce Batch was found missing and the same was reported by the Class Teacher. Though search was made, the Attendance Register could not be traced.

3. While so, Smt. Chithra Varma R., HSST (Computer Science) received a text message in her mobile phone from the 4 ^th respondent-Lab Assistant mentioning the name, address and Aadhaar Number of one of the girl students in Plus One Commerce Batch. The text message related to a student in Plus One Commerce Batch, of which the Attendance Register was found missing. The said Teacher reported the same to the Principal. Ext.P2 is the copy of the message.

4. Thereafter, CCTV Footage was reviewed and it was revealed that the 4 ^th respondent-Lab Assistant had illegally taken the class register of Plus One Commerce Batch on 07.01.2025 morning. The matter was reported to the 3 ^rd respondent-Regional Deputy Director on 13.01.2025. An FIR was lodged in Kilimannoor Police Station.

5. Considering the gravity of the misconduct, the 4 ^th respondent was placed under suspension in contemplation of enquiry in terms of Rule 67 of Chapter XIVA of KER, as per Ext.P4 order. After preliminary investigation, the 3 ^rd respondent found the suspension valid and approved the decision of the Manager to place the 4 ^th respondent under suspension. The suspension period was, however, extended for 15 days only, as per Ext.P6.

6. The petitioner states that the said order has been passed without regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. There is prima facie material to implicate the 4 ^th respondent in the offence. The intention behind the theft of Attendance Register is yet to be found out. The text message sent by the delinquent and the CCTV Footage, raised serious suspicion about the conduct of the 4 ^th respondent. Therefore, it is necessary that enquiry is conducted keeping the 4 ^th respondent under suspension beyond the period of 15 days.

7. The petitioner therefore, sent Ext.P7 letter dated 04.02.2025 requesting the 3 ^rd respondent to review the order dated 03.02.2025. However, no action has been taken on Ext.P7. The petitioner thereafter filed Ext.P8 Appeal before the Government on 15.02.2025. Ext.P8 also has not given any positive result.

8. Counsel for petitioner submitted that in the matter of disciplinary action against Teachers / non-teaching staff of Higher Secondary School, provisions of Chapter XIVA KER mutatis mutandis applies. Ext.P6 order to the extent it limits the operation of the order of suspension to another 15 days alone, is non-speaking and unreasonable.

9. The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIVA KER empowers the controlling authority to conduct preliminary investigation into the allegations leading to suspension of an employee and sanction order of suspension issued by the disciplinary authority. The 3 ^rd respondent having satisfied that circumstances justify the continued suspension of the 4 ^th respondent approved the order of suspension, at the same time, limiting the period of suspension for a further period of 15 days only. This is highly illegal and arbitrary, contended the counsel for the petitioner.

10. The 4 ^th respondent entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The 4 ^th respondent submitted that there were disputes