Disciplinary proceedings against a teacher must adhere to due process; failure to notify the appointed manager renders such proceedings invalid.

1. The writ petition is preferred challenging Ext.P13 memo of charges and Ext.P18 order to conduct a formal enquiry by appointing an officer.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that while he was working as HSST in K.K.M. H.S.S., Palakkad, he was deputed by the Government as a Deputy Chief Examiner at Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Chittur in Palakkad District for the Higher Secondary Examination conducted during March, 2015.

3. (2.) The District Level Squad visited the school on 10.03.2015, while the petitioner was performing his duty as a Deputy Chief Examiner. Thereafter, the State Level Squad also came to the school on 17.03.2015 around 11.30 a.m.. At that point of time, the petitioner with an intention to identify those persons, as they did not disclose their identity to the petitioner, sought their identity cards being the Deputy Chief Examiner. He was completely unaware of the discussions made between them and the Principal, the Chief Examiner. In response to that, they disclosed to the petitioner that they are from the Department of General Education and they showed the petitioner a communication evidencing their authority to conduct inspection. Thereafter, some discussions were made between them with respect to non - inclusion of teachers in the team and he also sought the identity of the persons comprised in the team. The reason assigned for such enquiry is that the inspectors who came in the past had exhibited their identity and proof of authorisation, while he was working in other schools in different capacities during examinations. Thereafter, on completion of the inspection, the squad recorded displeasure in the visitors book to the effect that the petitioner had questioned their authority to conduct surprise inspection which in fact is totally incorrect. On seeing the said inscriptions, the petitioner then and there itself objected and stated that the recording is not correct.

4. (3.) It is further stated that he had not obstructed the inspection of the State Level Squad in any manner. After completion of the inspection, the State Level Squad left the school, as is evident from the entries in Ext.P1. However, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 representation before the Examination Secretary, DHSE, Thiruvananthapuram, to explain the entire sequence of events, on the premise that, the petitioner was competent to submit a report to the Examination Secretary as per the Circular issued by the Higher Secondary Directorate. But, he was served with an order of suspension raising some untenable allegations, as per Ext.P4. The petitioner was suspended on account of the specific demand of the members of the State Level Squad which visited the school, as is evident in Ext.P5. Thereby, it is stated that the suspension itself was on the dictate of the State Level Squad without conducting any proper enquiry into the alleged incident.

5. (4.) It is the case of the petitioner that the entire disciplinary action initiated under S.12A of the Kerala Education Act , 1958 is not sustainable, as the source of power to issue such order cannot be traced to S.12A of the Kerala Education Act , 1958. In that regard, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P6 representation. Thereafter, the enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the incident as per Ext.P7. The Chief Superintendent of examination was also sought for a report, however, no explanation was sought from the petitioner. In the report submitted by the Chief Superintendent of examination before the enquiry officer, the Chief Superintendent has categorically stated that the petitioner was totally innocent of the allegations raised against him, which is produced as Ext.P8. Thereafter, t