The court affirmed the obligation of educational authorities to conduct formal disciplinary inquiries under applicable rules, regardless of executive delays.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 22^nd day of January, 2026 The petitioner states that he is the approved Manager of ALP School, Kolathur which is an individual management School and the 4^th respondent is the Headmistress of the School. The petitioner issued Ext.P1 order suspending the 4^th respondent pending disciplinary action.

2. The 4^th respondent was suspended for allegation that she failed to make available text books to the students even after 3 months of reopening of the School which has caused difficulty to the students which in turn caused serious prejudice to the reputation and management of the School.

3. Thereafter the petitioner submitted a request to the Assistant Educational Officer to extend the suspension of the 4^th respondent beyond 15 days as contemplated under Rule 67 of Chapter XIVA KER . Upon hearing, the 3^rd respondent issued Ext.P3 order setting aside Ext.P1, directing the Manager to reinstate the 4^th respondent with effect from 14.08.2024.

4. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the 1^st respondent and Ext.P5 order was passed rejecting the revision petition holding that there is no reason to keep the Headmistress under suspension while conducting enquiry. But at the same time, there was also a direction to the Manager to suspend or take disciplinary action against the 4^th respondent for conducting strike in public against the School. Accordingly, the petitioner suspended the 4^th respondent in tune with the direction in Ext.P5.

5. The 4^th respondent filed a Review Petition to delete last portion of the order wherein the Government has directed to further suspend her. On review, the 1^st respondent issued a stay order against Ext.P5 suspension order till the disposal of the Review Petition.

6. On the same day, the Government issued yet another order allowing the Review Petition itself. Consequently, now the petitioner issued a charge memo along with a statement of allegations to the 4^th respondent in connection with Ext.P1 suspension order. To the said memo of charges, the 4^th respondent submitted her written statement denying the allegations.

7. On receipt of the statement, the petitioner preferred a request before the 3^rd respondent-Assistant Educational Officer for conducting an inquiry under Rule 75 of Chapter XIV A of KER . But, the Assistant Educational Officer refused to proceed with the request of enquiry stating that he had sought clarification from the Government as per Ext.P12 letter. It is the statutory obligation on the part of the Educational Officer to conduct a formal enquiry, if the Manager feels that the reply to the charge memo is not satisfactory and intends to proceed with the disciplinary action. So, the 3^rd respondent is bound to conduct a formal enquiry into the charges as per Rule 75 of Chapter XIV A . Thus Ext.P12 communication of the 3^rd respondent is against the provisions of and is issued to delay the formal enquiry requested by the petitioner. 8. The reason stated by the Assistant Educational Officer in Ext.P12 letter for not proceeding with the enquiry is that there is a stay on the suspension order of the 4^th respondent by the Government. It is evident from Ext.P8 that final orders have already been passed on the Review Petition filed by the 4^th respondent and accordingly Ext.P7 stay order no longer survives.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3.

10. Government Pleader controverted all the material allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition. On behalf of respondents 1 to 3, it is submitted that since the issue of disciplinary proceedings against the 4^th respondent is being considered by the Government, t