Kerala High Court
The Manager vs State Of Kerala on 20 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 30TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.26633 OF 2019(D)
PETITIONER:
THE MANAGER, AKM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
KOTTOOR, INDIANOOR, MALAPPURAM-676 503.
SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH
SRI.K.S.ROCKEY
SRI.TONY AUGUSTINE
SRI.GEORGE RENOY
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
MALAPPURAM-676 001.
3 D.DEEPESH,
HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER(ENG.), AKM HIGHER SECONDARY
SCHOOL, KOTTOOR, INDIANOOR, MALAPPURAM-676 503.
SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN
SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.26633 OF 2019(D)
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 20th day of January 2021
The Manager of "AKM Higher Secondary School",
Malappuram, has approached this Court impugning Ext.P3
Inquiry Report settled by the second respondent - District
Educational Officer, Malappuram, on certain allegations
levelled against the third respondent - High School Teacher,
as also Ext.P5 order of the Government approving the same,
on various grounds but primarily that the enquiry is vitiated
on account of the fact that no witnesses were allowed to be
examined and that their depositions have not been recorded
by the second respondent.
2. The petitioner, through his learned counsel
Sri.Augustine Joseph, vehemently asserts that, as is evident
from Ext.P4, none of the witnesses that were produced by him
before the Enquiry Officer had even been examined; while
when the matter went to the Government, it is recorded in
Ext.P5 that the said enquiry report is based on the deposition
of the witnesses. The learned counsel pointed out that even a
reading of Ext.P3 would not show that the DEO has relied
upon any oral evidence or deposition of any of the witnesses
WP(C).No.26633 OF 2019(D)
and therefore, that both Exts.P3 and P5 are liable to be set
aside and prayed that this Court do so and direct the second
respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry.
3. In response, Sri.R.K.Muralidharan - learned counsel
appearing for the third respondent, submitted that the
allegations made by the petitioner in this writ petition are
wholly untenable because he had not produced any witnesses
before the second respondent at the time when the enquiry
under Rule 75 Chapter XIV A of the KER was taken forward,
nor did he even produce a list of witnesses, which is the
procedure as is stipulated under the said Rules. He submitted
that this is evident from the fact that even in the averments
contained in this writ petition, there is not even a whisper
that witnesses had been cited or produced by the petitioner or
that the second respondent had refused to allow him to
examine them or to cross examine them.
Sri.R.K.Muralidharan, therefore, prayed that this writ petition
be dismissed.
4. The learned Senior Government Pleader -
Sri.P.A.Manoj, appearing on behalf of the official respondents,
submitted that Ext.P5 order is irreproachable, since the
Government has gone through the enquiry report, namely
WP(C).No.26633 OF 2019(D)
Ext.P3, in detail and have found that it has been prepared by
the second respondent after following due procedure. He,
therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
5. I have considered the afore submissions and have also
gone through Exts.P3 and P5 very carefully.
6. There is little doubt from Ext.P3 that the second
respondent has settled the same without specifically
mentioning therein about any deposition having been
recorded from any witness. Further, the report is also silent
as to whether the Manager had filed a list of witnesses or
whether he had produced witnesses before the Enquiry
Authority at the time when the proceedings were continuing.
This has some relevance because, in Ext.P2 - which is a letter
issued by the Manager on 21.09.2017 to the second
respondent, he has cited two witnesses and has averred in
ground C of this writ petition that they were present before
the said respondent when the proceedings were being
continued by him.
7. That apart, in Ext.P5, the Government has recorded
that enough opportunity had been given to the petitioner to
examine and cross examine the witnesses and that Ext.P3 has
been settled on the basis of the "depositions" from such
WP(C).No.26633 OF 2019(D)
witnesses. However, as of now, this Court is not in a position
to verify whether there were any such depositions and
obviously, therefore, the allegations of the petitioner will
require further scrutiny by the Government itself.
In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and
set aside Ext.P3; with a consequential direction to the
competent Secretary of the first respondent to reconsider
Ext.P4 revision filed by the petitioner, adverting to his
contentions as recorded in this writ petition and after
affording an opportunity of being heard to him as well as the
third respondent - either physically or through video
conferencing - thus culminating in an appropriate decision
thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than
three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
Stu JUDGE
WP(C).No.26633 OF 2019(D)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES ALONG WITH
THE STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS DATED
14.08.2017.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED
21.09.2017 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INQUIRY REPORT OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 15.01.2018.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 24.01.2018.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.09.2019.
