Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 15865
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Devan Ramachandran, J
DEEPESH D., – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/4386/2021
SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN, SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J., SRI.K.R.GANESH, SRI.P.M.MANOJ -SR.GP
The court affirmed the importance of procedural fairness in employment disputes, directing a comprehensive review under established rules.
Headnote:
Employment - School Reinstatement - Kerala Education Rules - Rule 67(8) - Court directed the Secretary of the Government to decide the revision petition while considering the earlier judgment and allegations against the petitioner, emphasizing procedural fairness.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an HSA at a school, was suspended on charges deemed minor. He approached the court for reinstatement after a prior order indicated dismissal wasn't warranted. The manager argued ongoing inquiries could still lead to dismissal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found merit in the government pleader's suggestion to allow the government to resolve the pending revision petition, ensuring both parties had a chance to be heard.
Issues: Whether the petitioner should be reinstated during pending investigations and if prior directions regarding disciplinary actions were followed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court focused on the necessity for a government review of the case, allowing both parties to present their positions, aligning with Rule 67(8) provisions for fair adjudication.
Final Decision: The court directed the government to resolve the revision petition within two months, considering relevant previous judgments.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 5th day of March 2021 The petitioner, who is stated to be working as a High School Assistant (HSA) in English in “AKM HSS” Kottoor, Malappuram, has appraoched this Court seeking a direction to the fourth respondent - who is the Manager of the said School - to reinstate him in service forthwith and for a further order to the third respondent - District Educational Officer (DEO) to approve his appointment as HSA with effect from
01.06.2016.
2. The petitioner says that he has been constrained to approach this Court because he had been suspended from service by the Manager of the School on certain very venial charges and that the second respondent - Deputy Director of Education (DDE), Malappuram has already found in Ext.P12 order that a major punishment of dismissal cannot be imposed against him. The petitioner, therefore, contends that the second respondent ought to have directed his reinstatement under Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules ( KER ).
3. In addition to the afore contentions of the petitioner, Sri.R.K.Muralidharan - his learned counsel added that the major allegation against his client was that he was involved in a crime but that, as is evident from Ext.P9, this Court has already quashed the same. He thus prays that the reliefs sought for in this writ petition be granted.
4. In response to the afore submissions of the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the Manager - Smt.Priya Kaimal, submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed on record producing therewith several documents to show the grievous nature of the allegations against the petitioner; and additionally contended that merely because Ext.P9 order has been delivered, it does not mean that the petitioner has been exonerated of all charges. She pointed out that even the second respondent in Ext.P12 order has permitted the disciplinary enquiry to go on and that, in fact, her client has challenged the said order before the Government through Ext.R4(z) Revision Petition. Smt.Priya Kaimal submitted that, therefore, there is every possibility that the Government may permit even the dismissal of the petitioner, as has been proposed by her client, and therefore that his reinstatement at this stage would be totally inappropriate. She, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
5. The learned Senior Government Pleader -
Sri.P.M.Manoj, affirms that Ext.R4(z) Revision is still pending before the Government and added that if this Court is so inclined, the Government can consider it within a time frame, during which process, it can also be decided if the petitioner need to be reinstated in service, under the provisions of Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV A of the KER . He submitted that this will balance the dialectical contentions of the parties, so that there will be a resolution of their internecine disputes without any further delay.
6. When I hear the parties as afore, I am convinced that the suggestion now put forth by the learned Senior Government Pleader is the best available to the petitioner and to the Manager of the school. In fact, I must also record that both Sri.R.K.Muralidharan and Smt.Priya Kaimal affirm that the Government can be allowed to complete the process as suggested by Sri.P.M.Manoj.
7. In the afore circumstances, without entering into the merits of any of the contentions of rival parties, I order this writ petition and direct the competent Secretary of the Government to take up Ext.R4(z) Revision of the Manager of the school and dispose it of, after affording him and the petitioner an opportunity of being heard – either physically or through video conferencing – thus culminating in an appropriate order thereon, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
It is needless to say that, while the afore exercise is completed, the competent Secretary of the Government will advert specifically to Ext.P9 judgment of this Court, as also every other relevant docu
