Failure to provide an opportunity of hearing before punitive actions undermines procedural fairness, necessitating remand for due process.

JUDGMENT :

D. K. SINGH, J.

The petitioner is the manager of T.I.M. Girls Higher Secondary School, Nadapuram. The 5^th respondent, the clerk (retired), was placed under suspension by the petitioner on the complaint of the Headmaster of the school alleging unauthorized absence, professional misconduct, non-cooperation, dereliction of duty, etc. The preliminary enquiry was conducted and prima facie it was found that the 5^th respondent had misconducted himself. Therefore, the 5^th respondent was placed under suspension by the petitioner vide Ext.P4 order dated 17.07.2014 for fifteen days under Rule 67 (1) of Chapter XIV-A of the KERALA EDUCATION RULES . After placing the 5^th respondent under suspension, the same was intimated to the 4^th respondent to conduct a preliminary enquiry and permit the petitioner to extend the suspension of the 5^th respondent beyond fifteen days.

2. The 4^th respondent conducted a preliminary enquiry and found that there was a prima facie case of professional misconduct for which the petitioner had initiated disciplinary proceedings against the 5^th respondent. The 4^th respondent accorded permission to the petitioner to place the 5^th respondent under suspension beyond fifteen days. The 5^th respondent was issued Ext.P7 charge memo cum statement of allegations dated 22.09.2014. The 5^th respondent submitted a reply dated 06.10.2014 to the charge sheet. The 5^th respondent’s reply to the charge sheet was not found enough to drop the charge sheet and therefore, a formal enquiry was proposed to be conducted under Rule 75 (9) of Chapter XIV A of the KER. The formal enquiry was conducted on 16.12.2014 and report of the enquiry was forwarded to the petitioner along with a letter dated 05.01.2015 by the enquiry officer. When the suspension exceeded more than six months, a request was made for reviewing the suspension period vide letter dated 26.03.2015. The 3^rd respondent, the Deputy Director of Education, vide order dated 22.04.2015, held that the 5^th respondent’s suspension was against the provisions contained in KER that the petitioner and the 4^th respondent were liable for the same. A direction was issued for reinstatement of the 5^th respondent in service with immediate effect. In view of the aforesaid order passed by the 3^rd respondent on 22.04.2015, the suspension of the 5^th respondent was withdrawn with immediate effect and he was reinstated in service.

3. The 3^rd respondent had issued a notice dated 30.12.2016 to the petitioner pursuant to the letter dated 04.11.2016 submitted by the 4^th respondent as to the failure of the petitioner in reducing the punishment imposed and to report the action taken. The punishment imposed on the 5^th respondent was, however, cancelled as the same was found to be excessive/disproportionate to the misconduct allegedly committed by the 5^th respondent. The petitioner had also challenged the order setting aside the punishment imposed on the 5^th respondent by filing an appeal before the Director of General Education. The appeal of the petitioner came to be dismissed and an order was passed by the 2^nd respondent to regualrize the suspension period of the 5^th respondent. Against, the said order passed by the 2^nd to 4^th respondents, the petitioner has filed a revision petition before the 1^st respondent, which is marked as, Ext.P32, however, the same was rejected vide order dated 11.12.2019.

4. The learned Government Pleader submits that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and affected parties before the order dated 11.12.2019 came to be passed by the 2^nd respondent.

5. The learned Government Pleader does not dispute the fact that no opportunity of hearing was provided while the impugned order dated 25.01.2023, which is marked as Ext.P39, came to be passed.

6. Considering the aforesaid stand of the learn