Kerala High Court
A.Sasi vs The State Of Kerala on 27 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 7TH MAGHA, 1942
WP(C).No.22500 OF 2012(J)
PETITIONER:
A.SASI
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O.MANNAN,HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (SOCIAL
SCIENCE),M.M.M.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
KUTTAYI,TIRUR-676562,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
JAGATHY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
DOWN HILL,MALAPPURAM-676519.
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
TIRUR,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676519.
5 THE HEADMASTER
M.M.M.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,KUTTAYI,
TIRUR-676562,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI P M MANOJ
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
27.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.22500 OF 2012(J)
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 27th day of January 2021
The petitioner is stated to be working as a High School
Assistant in MMM Higher Secondary School, Kuttayi, has
approached this Court impugning Ext.P11 letter issued to him
by the Head Master of the said school asking him to refund an
amount of Rs.67,876/-, allegedly being the amounts paid to
him as salary during the period when he was not eligible to
continue as a teacher on account of reduction of post.
2. The petitioner says that a proceedings appears to
have been issued, based on Ext.P9 order of the 3 rd
respondent-Deputy Director of Education, fixing a liability of
Rs.1,44,550/- against the Head Master, on the ground that
there were bogus admissions in the school; but that he has
been exonerated through the said order with a direction that
this amount be recovered from the teachers who had worked
in excess for the said period.
3. The petitioner says that, in fact, no action has ever
WP(C).No.22500 OF 2012(J)
been initiated by any authority to mulct him with the liability
for the alleged bogus admission and therefore, asserts that no
proceedings, pursuant to Ext.P11, can be allowed to continue
as per law. The petitioner thus prays that Ext.P11 be set aside
and all action against him be directed to be ceased.
4. In response, the learned Senior Government
Pleader, Sri.P.M.Manoj, submitted that a counter affidavit has
been placed on record wherein, the following have been
stated in paragraphs 2 and 3 :-
"2.It is respectfully submitted that the appointment of
the petitioner with effect from 27.07.1998 onwards was
approved by the 4th respondent. Due to the reduction of
post found by the Super Check Cell, the excess salary
drawn by the petitioner should be refunded. As per the
direction of the Super Check Cell, the 3 rd respondent
fixed the excess salary drawn by the teachers who were
thrown out as the liability of the then Head Master. But
as per the judgment dated 10.01.2012 of
WP(C)20017/2005 filed by the Head Master,
Government letter No.42146/A2/2012/G.Edn dated
06.08.2012 and letter No.SC/224/12/KKD dayed
13.08.2012 of Super Check Cell Officer, Kozhikode , the
3rd respondent released the liability of the Head Master
and directed the 4th respondent to recover the amount
from the concerned teachers.
3. As per the direction in Government letter
WP(C).No.22500 OF 2012(J)
No.42146/A2/2012/G.Edn dated 06.08.2012, the
excess salary drawn by the petitioner should be
recovered from the petitioner. The orders and
directions issued by the Department are in accordance
with the Hon'ble High Court judgment and
Government orders and directions (a) to (i) orders and
directions issued by the Department are in accordance
with the Hon'ble Court judgment and Government
orders and directions. The 3rd respondent has directed
to recover the excess salary drawn by the petitioner
from the petitioner himself vide Government letter
No.42146/A2/2012/G.Edn dated 06.08.2012."
5. The learned Senior Government Pleader, therefore,
prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
6. The afore submissions of the learned Senior
Government Pleader-juxtaposed by the averments in the
counter affidavit afore extracted - would show that on
18.10.1998 the Super Check Cell Officer made a surprise visit
to the school and found that there was shortage in attendance
of students, which led to another visit being conducted on
08.02.1999, wherein again, students were found to be short.
This led to proceedings being initiated against the
Headmaster of the School and orders were issued against
him to recover the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,44,550/-.
WP(C).No.22500 OF 2012(J)
7. However, the Headmaster then approached this
Court by filing WP(C)N.20017 of 2005 and obtained Ext.P8
judgment, in which, a learned Judge of this Court
affirmatively found in his favour, since no disciplinary action
had been initiated against him before such recovery was
ordered and holding that the liability of alleged bogus
admissions in the School could not have been fixed against
the Headmaster.
8. Pertinently, while Ex.P8 judgment was delivered,
the learned Judge relied upon the views of a learned
Division Bench of this Court in WA No.1288 of 2007, to
conclude that in the absence of valid disciplinary enquiry, no
action can be taken against the Headmaster or against any
teacher.
9. What is relevant in this case is that the
observations in Ext.P8 judgment would apply in its full force
to the petitioner herein also, since it is virtually conceded that
the 3rd respondent has issued Ext.P9 order even without
hearing him and without subjecting him to any enquiry, as is
required under the provisions of the Kerala Education Rules.
WP(C).No.22500 OF 2012(J)
Therefore, the observation in WA No.1288 of 2007 that "no
provision has been brought to our notice, which enables the
DPI while passing an order in the nature of Ext.P2 to order
recovery from the Headmistress, the loss suffered by
sanction to additional class divisions, given based on bogus
admission of students" (sic) will apply on all fours to the
petitioner also I cannot, therefore, comprehend how Ext.P11
proceedings could have been issued by the Headmaster to the
petitioner.
10. In the afore circumstances, I direct the authorities
not to take any action against the petitioner based on Exts.P9
and P11, unless proper proceedings under the provisions of
the KER are initiated and concluded in terms of law, subject
to the laws and principles of limitation.
Reserving the afore liberty to the competent authorities,
I dispose of this writ petition.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
dlk/27.01.2021
WP(C).No.22500 OF 2012(J)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF
THE PETITIONER DATED 27/07/1998.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B2-
10470/2000 DATED 29/03/2001 OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE
PRINCIPAL TO THE PETITIONER DATED
08/06/2005.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE
PETITIONER TO THE PRINCIPAL DATED
29/07/2005.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. B2-7916/02
DATED 12/11/2004 OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. B2/7916/02
DATED 18/12/2004 OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. B2-7916/02
DATED 14/05/2004 OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC
NO.20017/2005-G DATED 10/02/2012.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B4-
48365/1999 DATED 27/08/2012 OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER
NO.42146/A2/2012/G.EDN. DATED
06/08/2012 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 131/12-13
OF THE HEADMASTER TO THE PETITIONER
DATED 07/09/2012.
