Disciplinary proceedings in educational institutions must adhere to statutory rules and proper authority must initiate such actions.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 16^th day of February, 2026 [W.P.(C) Nos.44913/2025 and 2684/2026]

The petitioner in these writ petitions, is an Aided School Teacher working in the 5^th respondent’s School. The petitioner states that he was placed under suspension on 16.07.2019. A criminal case is also pending against the petitioner for the alleged offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012. The writ petitions are filed seeking to quash Charge Sheet and to direct the respondent to pay substantial allowance.

2. The petitioner would submit that the Manager issued Ext.P5 Charge Memo and thereafter he terminated the petitioner from service, subject to sanction of the Deputy Director of Education. The Deputy Director of Education has not granted sanction to Ext.P7 punishment.

3. Subsequently, the Deputy Director of Education himself has issued Ext.P9 Charge Memo along with Ext.P8 statement of allegations as per Rule 75 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules , 1959 and a personal hearing is scheduled.

4. The petitioner states that no enquiry is permissible on the basis of a Charge Memo issued by incompetent authority. The entire proceedings are vitiated by violation of statutory Rules. The petitioner would urge that the issue involved in the case is covered in his favour in view of the judgment of this Court in Seetharam UPS v. State of Kerala [2012 (2) KLT 338] .

5. The petitioner earlier filed W.P.(C) No.44913/2025 seeking to direct the respondents to pay subsistence allowance due to the petitioner from the month of August, 2025 onwards and to declare that the petitioner is entitled to temporary advance from Provident Fund account and issue further direction to sanction temporary advance applied for by the petitioner.

6. Counsel for the Manager submits that it was at the instance of the departmental authorities that the disciplinary proceeding was initiated by the Manager under Rule 77A of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules , 1959. If the management omitted to take disciplinary action, the departmental authorities will proceed against the management. Counsel for the Manager further submitted that during the pendency of a departmental proceeding, it may not be proper to disburse the Provident Fund advance, as it may later come difficult to recover the amounts if any found due from the petitioner.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing the departmental respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the Manager.

8. The petitioner is challenging the subsequent Charge Memo issued to him by the Educational Authorities.

9. The Government Pleader would submit that in view of Rule 75 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules , 1959, they have power to initiate disciplinary action. The petitioner would insist that the powers Under Rule 75 of Chapter XIV A of the , 1959 can be invoked only when the Manager has failed to invoke action against the petitioner.

10. I find that as disciplinary proceedings have already been initiated, an interference at this stage is not necessary. If disciplinary proceedings result in imposition of penalty, the petitioner will be entitled to urge all grounds against the punishment including the competency to initiate fresh proceedings under Rule 75 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules , 1959, which opportunity is open to the petitioner.

11. At this stage, it would be only just and proper to dispose of these writ petitions directing the respondents to pay substance allowance to the petitioner and to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a reasonable time.

12. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of wit