K.S.Santhanagopalan vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 1409 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

    THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 24TH POUSHA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.4865 OF 2012(G)


PETITIONERS:

      1        K.S.SANTHANAGOPALAN, MANAGER,
               SRIKRISHNAPURAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
               SRIKRISHNAPURAM POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
               PIN - 679 513.

      2        M.S.N SUDHAKARAN, PRINCIPAL,
               SRIKRISHNAPURAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
               SRIKRISHNAPURAM POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
               PIN - 679 513.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.M.V.BOSE
               SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN
               SMT.NISHA BOSE

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE STATE OF KERALA,
               REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
               GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

      2        THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,
               SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

      3        THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
               HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,
               OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
               EDAPALLY.P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 682 024.

               BY ADV. SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD         ON
14.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.4865 OF 2012(G)

                                     -2-


                              JUDGMENT

Dated this the 14th day of January 2021

The petitioners have approached this Court

impugning Ext.P7 order of the Regional Deputy

Director dated 6.2.2012, imposing the punishment

of withholding of one annual increment upon the

second petitioner, without cumulative effect,

invoking the provisions of Section 12A(b) of the

Kerala Education Act, 1958 (for short, 'the

Act').

2. The petitioners alleged that Ext.P7 is

egregiously improper, because even if it is

assumed that Section 12A(b)of the Kerala

Education Act is applicable in this case, it can

only permit initiation of disciplinary action

but cannot be used by the Educational

Authorities to impose a punishment as they deem

fit.

3. The petitioners, of course, also say

that the allegations against the second

petitioner are totally baseles, since it had WP(C).No.4865 OF 2012(G)

only been alleged against him that he had lost

the service book of a Higher Secondary School

Teacher, Sri.P.Ravikumar. The petitioners say

that, since the allegation was so venial, the

School Administrative Committee took a decision

not to take any action against the second

petitioner and that this decision was supported

by valid reasons. The petitioners, therefore,

pray that Ext.P7 be set aside.

4. When this matter was called today,

Sri.Vinod Madhavan - the learned counsel for the

petitioners, submitted that even though the

first petitioner is no more, this writ petition

can be continued, since the second petitioner is

the person finally aggrieved by Ext.P7. He thus

reiteratingly prayed that Ext.P7 be set aside.

5. The learned Senior Government Pleader,

Sri.P.M.Manoj, in response to the afore

contentions, submitted that Ext.P7 has been

issued only because, in spite of the imputations

against the second petitioner, the Manager of

the School did not take any action under Section WP(C).No.4865 OF 2012(G)

12A(b) of the Act, but exonerated him without

any reasonable cause. The learned Senior

Government Pleader, therefore, prayed that

Ext.P7 be allowed to operate and that this writ

petition be dismissed.

6. I have considered the afore submissions

very carefully and have also gone through the

materials available on record.

7. It is without doubt, even as per the

submission of the learned Senior Government

Pleader that the only allegation against the

second petitioner was that he had been careless

in having lost the service book of

Sri.P.Ravikumar, a teacher of the School.

However, it is also on record that the

Administrative Committee of the School, taking

note of the explanation of the second

petitioner, decided not to take any further

action because they found that his explanation

regarding the loss of the service book was

satisfactory and without any blame against him. WP(C).No.4865 OF 2012(G)

8. However, when the matter went before

the Educational Authorities, they refused to

accede to this and Ext.P7 order has been issued

by the Regional Educational Director, imposing a

punishment on the second petitioner, invoking

Section 12A(b) of the Act.

9. When I examine Section 12A(b) of

the Act, it is clear that the jurisdiction

vested in the Educational Authorities under it

is only to recommend initiation and completion

of the disciplinary enquiry as against a

teacher, but they cannot unilaterally impose

punishment as has been done in Ext.P7.

10. That apart, even though it is stated in

Ext.P7 that decision of the School

Administrative Committee cannot be acceded to,

no reasons have been stated therein as to why,

particularly when the only allegation against

the second petitioner was that he had carelessly

lost the service book of a teacher of the

School.

WP(C).No.4865 OF 2012(G)

In the afore circumstances, I am of the

certain view that Ext.P7 cannot be allowed to

continue, especially since all actions pursuant

to have remained stayed for the last more than

eight years by this Court and no attempt has

been made to have the same vacated during this

period.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this

writ petition and quash Ext.P7; with a

consequential direction that no action be taken

against the second petitioner, at this distance

of time, on the basis of the imputation that he

had lost the service book of Sri.P.Ravikumar, a

Higher Secondary Teacher of the School in

question.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE akv WP(C).No.4865 OF 2012(G)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 27.5.2010 MADE TO THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR BY THE PRINCIPAL.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.11.2011 FROM THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.12.2011 FROM THE MANAGER.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 3.1.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6.1.2012.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.2.2012.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.2.2012.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.02.2012.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE