The authority of educational institutions to discipline staff is central to maintaining educational standards and is protected under constitutional rights.

J U D G M E N T

This writ petition is preferred by the Manager of an aided Higher Secondary School, who is aggrieved by refusal of the 3^rd respondent – Regional Deputy Director to accord prior sanction under Rule 74 of the Kerala Education Rules for imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement on the 4^th respondent, despite proved misconduct and to reinstate the 4^th respondent into service, thereby seriously prejudicing the discipline, safety and academic environment of the institution.

2. Ext.P4 Memo of charges was laid against the

4^th respondent in connection with unauthorized removal of Attendance Register of Plus One Commerce Batch, which was found missing since 07.01.2025. CCTV footage showed that the 4^th respondent unauthorisedly entered the office room and removed the record. The said conclusion is reinforced from the text message inadvertently sent by the 4^th respondent to a Teacher mentioning the name, address and Aadhaar Number of one of the girl students in Plus One Commerce Batch, available from the Attendance Register. Ext.P4 Final Report filed following Ext.P1 FIR implicated the

4^th respondent under Sections 306 and 238C of BNS. 3. In the inquiry, the Inquiry Authority categorically entered a finding that the misconduct stood proved. However, the report is inconclusive as to its findings on each charge and reasons for entering such findings. Thus, it breached the mandate of Rule 75 of Chapter XIV A KER .

4. Further, by Exts.P11 and P12, the 3^rd respondent, without jurisdiction and authority, issued directions as to the nature of punishment to be imposed, which is within the realm of employer-Disciplinary Authority and also prescribed the punishment to be imposed, a penalty of censure and reinstatement.

5. The impugned action undermines the authority of the School Management to maintain discipline and order, infringes the institution’s fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India to function in a safe and disciplined educational environment, and amounts to arbitrary state action violative of Article 14, contends the petitioner.

6. The 4^th respondent, who faces another charge of indiscipline and insubordination against the Principal and an act of misconduct against a girl student and her parent, cannot be allowed to interfere with the discipline of the School, urged the petitioner.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3. Notice to the 4^th respondent is dispensed with in view of the reliefs being granted in this writ petition.

8. The petitioner would submit that Ext.P8 inquiry report did not end up separate finding from charges. The impugned proceedings evidenced by Exts.P11 and P12 are illegal and arbitrary and vitiated by complete non application of mind. The 3^rd respondent has acted wholly beyond the jurisdiction conferred under Rule 74 of Chapter XIV A KER . Instead of confining itself to examining whether the proposed penalty was vitiated by illegality, the 3^rd respondent has reappreciated the evidence.

9. Be that as it may. I find that the petitioner has approached the Government filing Ext.P13 Revision Petition invoking Rule 92 of Chapter 49 of KER . Since it is a statutory Revision Petition, it would be only appropriate that the Revisonal Authority considers the same and passes appropriate orders expeditiously.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to consider Ext.P13 Revision Petition and pass appropriate orders within four months, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the 4^th respondent. The operation of Exts.P11 and P12 shall stand stayed till orders are passed