The authority to revoke a suspension order is upheld within the statutory framework provided by the Kerala Education Rules.

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 19^th day of February, 2026 The petitioner states that the petitioner is the Manager of Kannadi Higher Secondary School. It is an Aided School in terms of the Kerala Education Act and Rules, situated in Palakkad Educational District. The 5^th respondent is a High School Assistant functioning as the Class Teacher of Standard IX ‘I’ Division in the petitioner’s School during the Academic Year 2025-2026.

2. On 16.10.2025, an unfortunate incident of suicide occurred involving Arjun J., a student of Standard IX ‘I’ Division of the School at his residence. Following the incident, there was widespread agitation by students of the School as well as students from nearby Schools, creating a highly emotionally surcharged atmosphere in and around the School premises. In view of the prevailing law and order situation and to restore normalcy in the School, the petitioner placed the 5^th respondent under suspension with effect from 16.10.2025 as a temporary administrative measure. The suspension was not based on any finding of culpability on the part of the 5^th respondent.

3. On the same day, the petitioner intimated the suspension order to the DEO, Palakkad in terms of Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules , requesting to conduct a preliminary enquiry. Pursuant thereto, the DEO, Palakkad visited the School and conducted a preliminary enquiry into the circumstances leading to the suspension. After the enquiry, the DEO, Palakkad issued an order permitting the Manager to extend the period of suspension beyond 15 days.

4. In the preliminary enquiry, the DEO, Palakkad found that the Teachers of the School were not responsible for the unfortunate suicide of the student. The only lapse noted against the 5^th respondent was that she had restricted interaction of students of Standard IX ‘I’ Division with other students during the lunch break. In compliance with the permission granted by the DEO, Palakkad, however, the petitioner extended the suspension of the 5^th respondent beyond 15 days as per order dated 01.11.2025.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner, being the disciplinary authority, issued memo of charges with statement of allegations to the 5^th respondent under Rule 76 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules , proposing disciplinary action for minor penalty. The sole allegation was that the 5^th respondent did not permit students of Standard IX ‘I’ Division to interact with other students during the lunch break and insisted on their presence in the classroom after lunch.

6. The 5^th respondent submitted a detailed written statement of defence explaining that the measures adopted were part of the School Adopted Group (SAG)

scheme implemented as per departmental instructions for providing intensive coaching to academically backward students. She also stated that students were given adequate opportunity to interact with others and that parents were aware of the programme.

7. After considering the defence statement and being satisfied that no criminal investigation was pending against the 5^th respondent, the petitioner revoked the suspension and reinstated the 5^th respondent in service under Rule 67(6) of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules , subject to finalization of the disciplinary proceedings. Subsequently, the Station House Officer, Palakkad Town South Police Station, confirmed that the 5^th respondent was not involved in any criminal case in connection with the alleged incident.

8. While so, the DEO, Palakkad issued an order dated 03.01.2026 interdicting the reinstatement of the

5^th respondent, stating that suspension was continuing and directing payment of only subsistence allowance. The said order also incorrectly stated that police investiga