Disciplinary proceedings may proceed independently of ongoing criminal cases.

JUDGMENT Dated this the 12^th day of March, 2026 Petitioner is the Manager of SN LP School, Vettikkattiri, Cheruthuruthy, Thrissur District. The 3^rd respondent is a Lower Primary School Teacher (LPST) in the said School.

2. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P9 order dated 22.01.2026 passed by the 1^st respondent, whereby approval sought by the petitioner for implementing the punishment of dismissal imposed on the 3^rd respondent was arbitrarily dismissed with unsustainable reasons.

3. The 3^rd respondent was involved in a criminal case registered under the POCSO Act alleging repeated sexual assault upon a minor girl. Considering the gravity of the allegations and the serious misconduct involved, the petitioner placed the 3^rd respondent under suspension and initiated disciplinary proceedings, issuing a charge memo dated 01.10.2024.

4. The 2^nd respondent-Assistant Educational Officer conducted a detailed enquiry under Rule 75 of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules after issuing notice to both parties. After completion of the enquiry, the Assistant Educational Officer submitted a report finding that the charges against the 3^rd respondent stood proved.

5. Based on the findings of the enquiry report, the petitioner issued notice proposing punishment of dismissal from service and after considering the explanation submitted by the 3^rd respondent, passed an order dated 25.09.2025 imposing punishment of dismissal from service.

6. As required under Rule 75 (11)(c) of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules , the petitioner submitted an application before the 1^st respondent-District Educational Officer seeking approval for implementing the dismissal order. This Court, by judgment dated 01.12.2025 in W.P.(C) No.39883 of 2025, directed the 1^st respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's application within one month. Pursuant to the said direction, the 1^st respondent passed Ext.P9 order rejecting approval for dismissal solely on the ground that the criminal case under the POCSO Act is pending.

7. According to the petitioner, the reasoning adopted by the 1^st respondent is legally unsustainable, as it is a settled principle that disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings operate in different spheres and the pendency of a criminal case does not bar disciplinary action. The impugned order is arbitrary, non-speaking and contrary to the statutory provisions under the Kerala Education Rules as well as the settled legal principles governing disciplinary proceedings.

8. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash Ext.P9 order and for appropriate directions to the 1^st respondent to reconsider the petitioner's request for approval of the dismissal order in accordance with law.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1, 2 and 4. In view of the nature of the relief to be granted in the writ petition, notice to the 3^rd respondent is dispensed with.

10. The grievance of the petitioner is relating to denial of sanction for imposition of punishment on the 3^rd respondent. From the writ petition, I find that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P10 appeal in this regard, which is pending before the 4^th respondent. As Ext.P10 is of a statutory nature, it would be only just and proper that the 4^th respondent considers the same and passes appropriate orders thereon within a reasonable time.

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the

4^th respondent to consider Ext.P10 and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of two months after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent.

Sd/-