Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to established procedural rules to ensure fairness; non-compliance results in invalidation of penalties.

1. The points raised for decision in these Original Petitions being connected, they are disposed of a by a common judgment.
O.P. No. 15056/2000 P

2. The petitioner is the Manager of St. Raphaels High School, Ezhupunna. The contesting fourth respondent was the Headmaster of the School. Respondents 1 to 3 are the statutory authorities. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the case are the following:

3. The disciplinary action against the fourth respondent was set in motion on the basis of a complaint filed by one Shri. N.J. Sebastian before the authorities. The Deputy Director of Education, Alappuzha by his order dated 23.3.1999 directed the Manager to take disciplinary action against the fourth respondent. It appears, the subject matter of the complaint was regarding the management of the P.T.A. funds. The Manager issued a memo dated 27.4.1999 to the fourth respondent calling for his explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. The Headmaster submitted his explanation on 5.5.1999. Finding the same not satisfactory, the Manager suspended the petitioner from service by order dated 31.5.1999. The Deputy Director by his order dated 9.6.1999 gave permission to extend the suspension beyond fifteen days. The Manager, thereafter by order dated 10.6.1999 extended the suspension of the fourth respondent without any time limit.

4. The Manager framed memo of charges initially containing 17 charges and thereafter an additional memo of charges was issued containing five more charges. Though the school was within the jurisdiction of the Cherthala D.E.O. , the Alappuzha D.E.O. Smt. Ponnamma was nominated by the Deputy Director to conduct the enquiry into the charges levelled against the fourth respondent. She submitted Exts. P1 and P2 reports finding the petitioner guilty of most of the charges. Based on the report, the Manager issued a show cause notice to the fourth respondent proposing to remove him from service. Considering the Headmasters explanation, the Manager decided to award the punishment of compulsory retirement to the delinquent. By Ext. P3 dated 11.1.2000, the Manager sought the permission of the Deputy Director of Education to impose the said penalty. The Deputy Director by Ext. P4 order dated 13.1.2000, i.e.., within two days of the submission of Ext. P3, considered the matter and declined to give sanction for the punishment of compulsory retirement from service finding that it is grossly disappropriate to the misconduct from the part of the delinquent employee. It was suggested that some other penalty may be inflicted on him. The Manager, though with demur accepted Ext. P4 and imposed the punishment of reduction of the lower post of High School Assistant permanently from the post of Headmaster with effect from 1.6.1999. After deciding to impose the said punishment, by Ext. P5 dated 13.1.2000 the Manager sought the permission of the Deputy Director to impose the said penalty of reversion as HSA. The Deputy Director by Ext. P6 dated 14.1.2000 gave sanction for demoting the fourth respondent as HSA only for a period of one year from 1.6.1999. Against Ext. P6, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Government. The fourth respondent filed an appeal against Ext. P6 before the Director of Public Instruction. The Government remitted the revision petition filed before it to the Director of Public Instruction to be heard along with the appeal filed by the fourth respondent. Both the matters were heard together and the Director of Public Instruction by Ext. P8 order dated 22.5.2000 affirmed Ext. P6 order of the Deputy Director. This Original Petition is filed challenging E