IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR &

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS MONDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1945 WA NO. 493 OF 2023 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 4611/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

MAHESH THAMPI AGED 39 YEARS S/O.THAMPI, UMBAKKATTU HOUSE, NATTASSERY, S.H.MOUNT P.O., KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686001 BY ADVS.

C.S.MANILAL S.NIDHEESH KUNJAPPEASOW RAINGE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

1 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION PALACE ROAD KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001

2 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, NSS BUILDING NEAR THIRUNAKKARA TEMPLE KOTTAYAM,, PIN - 686001

3 THE MANAGER S.N.D.P.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KILIROOR, S.N.ROAD, KANJIRAM P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686020 BY SR.G.P. SRI. A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

27.03.2023, THE COURT ON 10.04.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

C.R.

P.B.SURESH KUMAR & SOPHY THOMAS, JJ.

-----------------------------------------------

Writ Appeal No.493 of 2023 -----------------------------------------------

Dated this the 10^th day of April, 2023

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 (ii