Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 17823
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Devan Ramachandran, J
BINDU P.P. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/19588/2020
SRI.M.VIJAYAKUMAR, SHRI. BEJOY JOSEPH P.J., SRI.P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP
Disciplinary actions against teachers must adhere to procedural safeguards specified in the Kerala Education Act, particularly regarding notice and opportunity to respond.
Headnote:
Disciplinary Action - Employment - Kerala Education Act - Section 12A - The court determined that disciplinary action taken against the petitioner violated mandatory procedural safeguards outlined in Section 12A of the Kerala Education Act, warranting the annulment of the impugned orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a school teacher, contested disciplinary action taken against her for alleged bogus admissions. She provided documentation showing that a student, who was reported absent, had a legitimate Transfer Certificate upon leaving the school, which authorities failed to acknowledge properly.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations against the petitioner lacked a proper basis since the relevant documents were not considered by the authorities. It reaffirmed the necessity of following procedural mandates in disciplinary actions.
Issues: Whether the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner complied with the procedural requirements set out in Section 12A of the Kerala Education Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that failure to give proper notice and opportunity for the Manager to respond breached the procedural requirements, leading to the annulment of the disciplinary orders.
Final Decision: The court annulled the impugned orders and directed reconsideration of the petitioner's case, mandating an opportunity for her to present her evidence.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner, who is working as a Lower Primary School Teacher in the services of Thiruval U.P.School, Kannur, managed by the 5th respondent - Manager, has approached this Court impugning Exts.P6 and P7, as per which, she has been mulcted with liability, on the allegation that she had made certain bogus admissions to the School in question.
2. The petitioner says that an inspection by the Super Check Cell found that a student by name, Fathimul Najila M.P was not studying in the School, though she was shown in the roll; but that this was properly explained by saying that said student was admitted in the first standard on 01.06.2016 - with admission No.5753 and was promoted to the second standard, when her parents requested for Transfer Certificate and that she consequently, left the School on
04.07.2017 to join another School.
3. The petitioner says that even though these facts are documented by proper evidence, the Educational Authorities and the Government refused to look into it and have now mulcted her with liability on the specious allegation that she had made a bogus admission to the School. The petitioner says that even though she had produced all these documents to substantiate the case before the competent Educational Authorities, Ext.P4 statutory Revision filed by her has been rejected by the Government alleging that these had not been so and therefore, that it cannot be looked into.
4. The petitioner submits that the finding of the Super Check Cell, which visited the School on 13.10.2017 and 07.02.2018, that the student in question was absent is completely without basis on account of the afore facts and therefore, that no action could have been taken against her; and further that the finding of the Educational Authority in Ext.P6 order that the Transfer Certificate in question is a bogus one is also without any verifiable or justifiable cause, having been entered into without any proper application of mind. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the impugned orders be set aside.
5. In addition to the afore contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.M.Vijayakumar, submitted that in any event of the matter, no action could have been taken against his client in view of the fact that, under Section 12A of the Kerala Education Act , even though the Authorised Officer of the Government is vested with the powers to take disciplinary action against any teacher and to impose penalties specified therein, the proviso to it insists that before exercising such powers, the Authority must intimate the Manager regarding the circumstances leading to such proposed action and to give him/her a reasonable opportunity of initiating a disciplinary enquiry. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court inKishore v. State of Kerala [2019 (4) KLT 155] in substantiation of his afore contention. Sri.M.Vijayakumar concluded by arguing that since these provisions have been blatantly violated in this case, the impugned orders are without legs to stand on and reiteratingly prays that same be set aside.
6. The learned Senior Government Pleader, Sri.P.M.Manoj, in response, submitted that, as is evident from the impugned orders, the Super Check Cell found that on the two days they had visited the School, namely on 13.10.2017 and 07.02.2018, the student was absent and that though no documents were produced before the competent Educational Authorities by the petitioner to show that the student was in School and had moved away by obtaining a Transfer Certificate on 04.07.2017. He submitted that the Educational Authorities verified the Transfer Certificate and found that same had not been prepared or settled in a proper manner and therefore, it was thus justifiably concluded that it is a fabricated document. The learned Senior Government Pleader, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders are without error, particularly because Government has clearly recorded in Ext.P6 order that the petitioner had not produced
