The Manager of an aided school lacks authority to impose penalties contrary to an inquiry report finding innocence, affirming the necessity of government sanction as per the Kerala Education Act, 1958.

JUDGMENT :

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

1. Since a common issue is involved in these writ petitions, they are heard and disposed of by a common judgment.

2. W.P.(C) No.5942 of 2026 is filed by an aided school teacher seeking implementation of Ext.P20 order issued by the Government. Whereas, W.P.(C) No.6532 of 2026 is filed by the Manager of the said school challenging the said order, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P18.

3. Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5942 of 2026 was put in charge as headmaster of the school during the period in which the regular headmistress of the school was placed under suspension by the manager. After the reinstatement of the headmistress, charge was handed over and all documents, including an amount of Rs.26,945.80, as the cash balance relating to the noon meal programme were also handed over. But, the stand taken by the headmistress is that the said amount has not been handed over to her. Based on a complaint, Ext.P1 communication was issued on 02.03.2010, directing the petitioner to hand over the amount within seven days. Ext.P2 memo of charges was issued to the petitioner, to which Ext.P3 reply was filed, wherein the petitioner took a stand that the amount has already been handed over to the headmistress, but to put a quietus to the whole issue, he is prepared to remit the said amount, if he is granted an opportunity to remit the same in instalments. But the manager did not accept the same. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated for imposition of a major penalty as contemplated under Rule 75 of Chapter XIV A, KER. Enquiry report was submitted by the District Educational Officer, finding that the petitioner is guilty of the charges levelled against him. The Manager, without serving a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner, issued Ext.P5 show cause notice, to which Ext.P6 objection was filed by the petitioner. Without considering the same, by Ext.P7 order, a punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed on the petitioner. The appeal filed against the same was dismissed and later, by Ext.P11, the Government also rejected the revision filed by the petitioner. Challenging Ext.P11, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.19577 of 2015, and this Court, by Ext.P12 judgment, set aside Ext.P11 order and directed the Government to reconsider the matter. In the meanwhile, the petitioner superannuated from service on 31.03.2016. After the remand by this Court as per Ext.P12 judgment, the Government reconsidered the matter and issued Ext.P13 order, finding that the entire procedure adopted by the Manager was wrong and directed to conduct a fresh enquiry. On the basis of the same, enquiry was conducted by the District Educational Officer and submitted Ext.P16 enquiry report, finding that the allegation levelled against the petitioner could not be proved beyond doubt, and a copy of the enquiry report was forwarded to the manager for taking appropriate action. Since no action was taken, petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.31093 of 2024, which was disposed of as per Ext.P17 judgment directing the manager to issue consequential orders based on Ext.P16 enquiry report. Without considering Ext.P16 enquiry report, wherein it was held that the charges could not be proved, by Ext.P18 order, the manager imposed a major penalty of compulsory retirement. Challenging Ext.P18, Ext.P19 revision was filed by the petitioner before the 1^st respondent Government and pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.43961 of 2024, Government issued Ext.P20 order wherein it was found that the petitioner is entitled to get all the benefits including the salary for the period from 04.07.2011 to 31.03.2016 and also to count the said period for all service benefits. Petitioner has approached this Court by filing W.P.(C